 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Walker v. Walker3/19/1999
to question application of the actuarial tables to an individual with Huntington's disease. Thus, the trial court did not err in referencing the life expectancy tables in determining the number of years over which John was likely to receive his pension. Considering the record before the trial court, there is credible evidence supporting the trial court's valuation of the pension fund.
III. Property Disposition
John's contention that the property Disposition was in error is predicated on his claim that the pension valuation was in error. Because we find no trial court abuse of discretion in valuing the pension, we need not address the remainder of the trial court's property Disposition.
IV. Disposition Based On Huntington's Disease
John asserts that the trial court based its property Disposition on the fact that he suffered from Huntington's disease and that Toni had no obligation to retrain or to seek full-time employment. He does not, however, provide record citations to support this factual argument. Rather, he appears to invite this inference from the circumstances of the parties and findings of the trial court.
Under RCW 26.09.080, the trial court must make a just and equitable division of the parties' property after considering all the relevant factors, which include, but are not limited to: (1) the nature and extent of the property; (2) the duration of the marriage; and (3) "{t}he economic circumstances of each spouse at the time the division of property is to become effective, including the desirability of awarding the family home or the right to live therein for reasonable periods to a spouse with whom the children reside the majority of the time." RCW 26.09.080(4). John has not demonstrated that the trial court considered inappropriate factors in arriving at its property Disposition.
Rather, the record reflects that the trial court appropriately considered the statutory factors. Specifically, the court stated in its Additional Finding of Fact number 9:
Considering the economic circumstances of each spouse at the time division of the assets is to occur, including the desirability of awarding the family home (or ability to provide the same) to the party having custody of the children, that parent's needs, financial ability, education, employment history and other demands, and those which may be made due to the minor children each having a 50-50 chance of having the disease, it is fair to award to the wife the proceeds of the Washington Mutual account, sellers' interest in the Willet contract, her personal property in her possession, her accounts with First Federal, and her non-vested retirement account.
John relies on Marriage of Wright, 78 Wn. App. 230, 234, 896 P.2d 735 (1995), for the proposition that a spouse is not entitled to a property award that allows the spouse to avoid working if able to work. But Wright speaks, not to property distribution, but rather to the inter-relationship between a parent's ability to work and to pay child support. John provides no other legal support and no citation to the record for support of this argument. We therefore decline to address this issue further. RAP 10.3(a)(5).
V. Tax Consequences of the Property Distribution
John asserts that the trial court erred by failing to consider the tax consequences of a property settlement that required immediate distributions from the 401K plan. "If tax consequences are imminent, or arise directly from the trial court's property Disposition, and the amount is not speculative, such consequences are properly considered in valuing marital assets." In Re Marriage of Hay, 80 Wn. App. 202, 206,
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Washington Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|