Alla Kamyshina, Respondent And Pavel Kamyshin, Appellant
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON In re the Marriage of: ) ) ALLA KAMYSHINA, ) DIVISION ONE ) Respondent, ) No. 63513-1-I ) and ) ) PAVEL KAMYSHIN, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) Appellant. ) FILED: July 26, 2010 ________________________________) Dwyer, C.J. Pavel Kamyshin contends that the trial court adjudicating the dissolution of his marriage miscalculated his child support obligation by determining that he had $600 in monthly business expenses rather than $944. However, Kamyshin has failed to show that the trial court exercised its discretion in an untenable or manifestly unreasonable way. In re Marriage of Griffin, 114 Wn.2d 772, 779, 791 P.2d 519 (1990). The record does not support Kamyshin s contention that the trial court should have subtracted $944 in monthly business expenses from his gross monthly income. In a financial declaration submitted to the trial court, Kamyshin claimed only $917 in monthly business expenses. That his declaration and testimony at trial concerning his expenses was unchallenged does not matter. In stating the reasons for its calculation of Kamyshin s monthly No. 63513-1-I/2 business expenses as being $600, the trial court specifically noted that Kamyshin had failed to submit any documentary evidence supporting his claimed expenses and that Kamyshin had admitted to attributing some of his personal travel expenses to his claimed expenses for business travel. The determination as to whether Kamyshin s testimony was credible was within the province of the trial court as the trier of fact, and such determinations are not reviewable on appeal. Morse v. Antonellis, 149 Wn.2d 572, 574, 70 P.3d 125 (2003) (citing State v. Camarillo, 115 Wn.2d 60, 71, 794 P.2d 850 (1990)). As the trial court s calculation was within the range of evidence presented, the calculation was not arbitrary as Kamyshin contends. Indeed, in the absence of any documentary evidence supporting Kamyshin s claimed business expenses, an award in the amount he claimed potentially could have been challenged by Kamyshin s exwife. The trial court did not abuse its discretion. Affirmed. We concur: -2- No. 63513-1-I/3 -3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
