CourtListener opinion 4177101

Evidence quotes

Clean opinion text

FILED
 JUNE 13, 2017
 In the Office of the Clerk of Court
 WA State Court of Appeals, Division Ill

 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
 DIVISION THREE

In re the Marriage of )
 ) No. 34145-3-111
RYAN GLOVER, )
 )
 Appellant, )
 )
 v. ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
 )
CONNIE GLOVER, )
 )
 Respondent. )

 SIDDOWAY, J. - Ryan Glover appeals the maintenance award, property division,

and payment terms ordered in the decree dissolving his almost 24-year marriage to

Connie Glover. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

 Ryan Glover filed for divorce from Connie Glover in November 2014, after nearly

24 years of marriage. Mr. Glover has a Bachelor's of Pharmacy degree and after
 No. 34145-3-111
In re Marriage of Glover

graduation, he went to work as a pharmacist for Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital.

After she graduated, Ms. Glover went to work as a high school math teacher in the Selah

School District. The parties' two children were both adults at the time of the divorce;

their son was still in college.

 At the bench trial, Ms. Glover asked the trial court for an equal division of the

community property and requested an award of maintenance in order to equalize the

disparity in her and Mr. Glover's incomes-at least until their son graduated from

college.

 Mr. Glover asked that the trial court award him a disproportionate amount of the

couple's community property because he feared, based on deficits resulting from a stroke

several years earlier, that he was at risk of losing his job and having difficulty finding

equivalent employment.

 At the time of trial, Mr. Glover's total gross monthly income was approximately

$10,765 ($8,265 earned; $2,500 in disability payments); Ms. Glover's was $5,645. Mr.

Glover reported net income of approximately $5,600; Ms. Glover reported net income of

approximately $4,069.

 Following a one-day trial, the court took the matter under advisement and within a

week issued a letter decision. Because a principal basis for Mr. Glover's appeal is the

 2
 No. 34145-3-111
In re Marriage of Glover

court's alleged failure to take into account his disability, we quote at length from the

court's discussion on that score:

 On December 5, 2010, the husband had a stroke. He was treated
 locally, and then transferred to Virginia Mason Hospital in Seattle. After a
 four day hospitalization, he was transferred back to Yakima and went
 through a rehabilitation program, of several weeks duration, at Yakima
 Regional Medical Center. He went back to work in May 2011, where he
 served as the supervising pharmacist at North Star Lodge, a cancer care
 clinic which is part of the hospital.

 The husband asks for a[ n] unequal division of assets. He bases his
 request upon his belief that he will soon be terminated from his
 employment, that he will be unable to obtain other employment in his field
 and that his medical condition has substantially compromised his potential
 life span.
 The difficulty with his argument is there is no evidence, beyond his
 testimony, that any of these beliefs have any validity. Although he is
 working a reduced number of hours at North Star, he is doing so at his own
 request. And the reduction in hours resulted in loss of his supervisory
 position; a consequence he accepted as part and parcel of the hours
 reduction. Although some of his communication skills, primarily speech,
 have been compromised by the stroke, he was able to testify and be
 understood during several hours on the witness stand. Additionally, he
 testified that he has been directed not [to] interact with the public or
 medical professionals, but he does so when the necessity arises.
 Regarding the issue [of] employability, it is difficult to assess Mr.
 Glover's opinions on this subject given the fact that he has not been in the
 job market since 1993. I find it incredible that a pharmacist of his
 education and experience, even lacking a doctorate, would be a pariah as a
 job seeker.
 Finally, there is no evidence from any uninterested medical
 professional which would suggest that Mr. Glover will not live an
 otherwise normal life span. The stroke was caused by a defect in his heart,
 which has since been corrected. His condition is stable.
 Although I think Mr. Glover is sincere in his beliefs, I also believe
 they are without basis in fact. A near equal division of the assets and

 3
 No. 34145-3-111
In re Marriage of Glover

 liabilities of the community is appropriate. I am rejecting Mr. Glover's
 request for a lopsided division.

Clerk's Papers (CP) at 10-12.

 The court's letter decision ruled that each party's community property interest in

the other's pension would be handled by a QDRO; 1 observed that the parties had already

divided their checking accounts, and divided the remaining community assets and

liabilities as follows:

 Awarded to Mr. Awarded to Ms.
 Glover Glover
 Residence $270,000.00
 Retirement accts $92,930.00 $92,930.00
 I(
 $21,701.00
 I(
 $28,037.00
 I(
 $34,442.00
 I(
 $16,388.00
 I(
 $20,977.00
 I(
 $20,791.00
 Vehicles $10,301.00
 I(
 $9,373.00
 I(
 $2,000.00
 I(
 $2,000.00
 Total Assets $430,650.00 $191,220.00

 Home mortgage ($115,543.00)
 Car loans ($4,848.00)
 I(
 ($5,222.00)
 Total Liabilities ($120,391.00) ($5,222.00)

 Asset allocation
 net of liabilities $310,259.00 $185,998.00

 1 Qualified domestic relations order.

 4
 No. 34145-3-III
In re Marriage of Glover

 The court's letter decision recognized that Ms. Glover had received a $120,000

inheritance after the dissolution action was filed, ruled that it retained its separate

character, and awarded it to her. It observed that the community had received the benefit

of a $95,000 inheritance Ms. Glover received in September 2011 (three years before the

dissolution action was filed) that had been deposited to a joint account and treated as a

community asset.

 The court ordered Mr. Glover to pay $1,600 in monthly maintenance for five years

from the decree or the date the parties' son graduated from college, whichever occurred

first. It based its award of maintenance on \[t]he duration of the marriage and the