 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Marriage of Brown7/30/2001
Michael Brown appeals the trial court's division of property in his marital dissolution case. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.
Michelle and Michael Brown had an eleven-year marriage. The parties do not have any children. The primary issue at trial was the division of the parties' property and whether Michelle, a self-employed artist, was entitled to spousal maintenance.
After a three-day trial, the trial court entered a decree of dissolution and divided the parties' property. The trial court adopted the parties' stipulation on the division of personal property. The remaining property to be divided included the family home, which the trial court found had equity of $52,952, a 1974 Porsche valued at $9,000, a 1996 Thunderbird valued at $11,290, and rental income of $745 per month. The community assets totaled $84,804. The trial court awarded Michael 45 percent of the community assets, and awarded Michelle the remainder. Under this distribution, Michael was awarded the family home, the Porsche, all rights to proceeds from his pending personal injury claim, all community and separate property interests in his father's business, and any rental income derived from the rental house located on the property of the family home. The trial court awarded Michelle the Thunderbird, a grand piano, all of her paintings, and a judgment lien in the amount of $21,279. The trial court denied Michelle's request for spousal maintenance, but granted her motion for attorney fees. Michael appeals, claiming that the court's property division was 'inequitable, distorted, and unfair.'
DISCUSSION
In his appeal, Michael first challenges the court's finding that the fair market value of the family was $288,731.31. He has failed, however, to specifically assign error to this finding. RAP 10.3(g) requires a challenged finding to 'be included with reference to the finding or proposed finding by number' in the appellate brief. The appellate rules further require a party to type the material portions of a challenged finding of fact or to include them in an appendix to the brief. RAP 10.4(c). Although the rule speaks in terms of what a party should do, the word 'should' in RAP 10.4(c) 'is a word of command, not merely a suggestion.' Thomas v. French, 99 Wn.2d 95, 99, 659 P.2d 1097 (1983).
Failure to comply with the requirements for assignment of error to findings of fact may preclude review of any challenge to the findings. See In re Marriage of Stern, 57 Wn. App. 707, 710, 789 P.2d 807 (1990). Since Michael has failed to comply with the appellate rules, the trial court's finding regarding the fair market value of the family home is a verity on appeal. Accordingly, we will not address whether the trial court should have discredited Michelle's expert appraiser.
Michael's second issue involves the trial court's characterization of the Porsche as community property. Michael claims that the Porsche is his separate property because he purchased the vehicle with his personal injury funds. A trial court's characterization of property is a question of law which we review de novo. In re Marriage of Skarbek, 100 Wn. App. 444, 997 P.2d 447 (2000).
Community property is generally limited to acquisitions 'through the toil, talent, or other productive faculty of either spouse . . . .' In re Marriage of Brown, 100 Wn.2d 729, 737, 675 P.2d 1207 (1984). Our State favors 'characterizing property as community instead of as separate property unless there is clearly no question of its character.' In re Marriage of Brewer, 137 Wn.2d 756, 766, 976 P.2d 102 (1999).
'Characterization of property as community or separate is not contro
Page 1 2 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|