 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Smith v. Smith3/11/2002
At issue is the property distribution provisions of a marriage dissolution. The appellant, Kay Smith, represented herself pro se at trial and argues primarily that the trial court had a duty to inform her of her right to make an offer of proof when her exhibits were challenged. The trial court has no such duty because a pro se litigant is bound by the same rules of procedure and substantive law as an attorney. Kay Smith failed to initiate a CR 37 conference as required by the court and did not object at trial to the testimony she now contends was improperly admitted. We find no procedural or evidentiary error by the trial court and conclude that the property distribution was fair and equitable.
Dennis and Kay Smith married in 1984 and separated in 1998. They had no children together. Dennis is a self-employed owner of a vending machine business. Kay is a legal assistant. During most of their marriage, the Smiths lived in the house that Kay was awarded in a previous dissolution. In 1987, Kay executed a quit claim deed in favor of Dennis that granted him one-half interest in the house in exchange for $25,000.
Kay filed a petition for dissolution. In the petition, Kay provided a recommended division of the property. The only issue before the court was the division of certain property and liabilities, including the house, a photo album of their trip to Sweden, Christmas videos, a freezer, and Dennis's business debts. Dennis was represented by counsel and Kay appeared pro se.
The trial court entered a decree of dissolution and, having found the parties' agreed property division to be fair and equitable, distributed the property as indicated, with some minor exceptions. The court found that the house was the major asset. The court found the house to be community property with equity of $185,000, and awarded Kay $110,000 of the house's equity and Dennis a $75,000 lien. The court diminished Dennis's interest in the house based on several factors including the house having originally been Kay's separate property and the amount of separate property that Dennis had acquired during the marriage.
Kay appeals from the trial court's characterization and valuation of the property. Kay is represented by counsel on appeal.
Kay challenges several procedural aspects of the trial. Initially, she argues that the trial court abrogated to Dennis its duty to rule on the admission of evidence. Kay attempted to enter a folder containing 55 unmarked documents into evidence. The trial court told her that she would have to have the documents marked as exhibits first. The court then proceeded to ask her whether she wanted to mark documents such as her opening statement, trial memorandum, a letter written by her to a non- party, a copy of Dennis's trial memorandum in which she made comments in the margins, a four-page 'History of Marriage', and a document pertaining to settlement negotiations. The trial court allowed Dennis to inspect the documents in order to determine which, if any, of the documents he found objectionable. Ultimately, the court marked five exhibits that contained several documents each.
Kay then moved to enter the exhibits into evidence. Dennis objected to several of the documents on grounds of relevance, authentication, hearsay, evidence of settlement discussions, and other bases. The trial court admitted three of the exhibits and rejected two exhibits.
Kay takes issue with the trial court allowing Dennis to inspect the documents. But her contention that the trial court's procedure allowed Dennis to 'unilaterally determine which exhibits would be marked and admitted as evidence' is without merit. The trial court merely allowed
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|