Amanda Mount, Respondent-cross/appellant V. John Mount, Appellant/cross-respondent (Majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SLED 0r - APPEALS 0 1 v I0N TI !S" 21014 A, 7 Arai 10: 22 I IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASH# DIVISION II FiIiGT BY Miii No. 43168 -8 - II In re the Marriage of: AMANDA STARR MOUNT, Respondent /Cross Appellant, UNPUBLISHED OPINION MA JOHN MERRITT MOUNT, PENOYAR, J. Merritt Mount. Amanda Mount filed for dissolution of her long term marriage to John In light of Merritt' s1 significant separate property and his greater monthly income, the trial court awarded Amanda the majority of the community property as well as spousal maintenance. The trial court also ordered Merritt to pay Amanda' s student loan debt and part of her attorney fees. Amanda maintenance, ( to pay Amanda' and request s$ Merritt appeals, arguing that the trial court erred when it ( 1) awarded 2) denied his motion to list the family house for sale, and ( 3) ordered him 12, 452 attorney fees student loan. on appeal. Both parties appeal the trial court' s attorney fee award The trial court reasonably exercised its discretion when it awarded Amanda maintenance and ordered Merritt to pay Amanda' s student loans because Merritt' s income is twice Amanda' s income, Merritt has more separate property, and their marriage was long term. Additionally, the trial court did not err when it denied Merritt' s motion to list the house for sale because Merritt failed to show that he could not maintain it, the housing market was down, and the parties could .not work together to sell it. Finally, we affirm the trial court' s attorney fee award but decline to award either party attorney fees on appeal. 1 Because the parties share the same last name, we refer to them by their preferred first names; we intend no disrespect. 43168 -8 -II FACTS Amanda 15, 2010. Both and Merritt parties are were married in their in 1988. to mid - Amanda filed a dissolution petition on July fifties late - and currently employed. Amanda earns 3, 894 per month and Merritt earns $ 7, 634 per month. Amanda recently received a three percent pay cut while Merritt received a $ 10, 000 raise. Merritt was diagnosed with prostate cancer before the dissolution trial. At the time of the trial, he was treating his cancer through diet and he stated that it was not impacting his work. At the conclusion of the trial, the court awarded 75 percent of the community property to and from his mother' s and house to Merritt ordered 2 the remaining 25 Amanda percent his friend' and ordered him to pay $ 12, 452 to Merritt . s estates as his The trial court awarded Merritt the proceeds separate him to pay Amanda 75 of Amanda' property. its equity. The trial court also and awarded her $ 1, 500 a month percent of s graduate school loans The trial court awarded the in maintenance until Merritt can no longer work or retires. Finally, the trial court ordered Merritt to pay $7, 000 of Amanda' s attorney fees. Merritt filed a motion for reconsideration. He argued, among other things, that the trial court erred by characterizing one of his retirement accounts as community property, by awarding 1, 500 per month in maintenance to Amanda, and by incorrectly calculating the amount of the inheritances. He also requested that the trial court allow him to list the family house for sale. The trial court denied the motion for reconsideration, except as to the retirement account, which it re- characterized as Merritt' s separate property. The court denied his motion to list the family house. 2 Merritt proposed this 75/ 25 division, depending on the trial court' s maintenance award. 2 43168 -8 -II Amanda also filed a motion for reconsideration, asking the trial court to award her additional attorney fees for responding to Merritt' trial motions. s post - The trial court denied Amanda' s motion. Merritt appeals. Amanda cross appeals. ANALYSIS STANDARD OF REVIEW I. A trial court has broad discretion to distribute property and award maintenance during a dissolution proceeding. In re Marriage of Olivares, 69 Wn. App. 324, 328, 848 P. 2d 1281 overruled on other grounds by In re Estate of Borghi, 167 Wn.2d 480, 219 P. 3d 932 1993), 2009)); In re Marriage of Zahm, 138 Wn.2d 213, 226, 978 P. 2d 498 ( 1999). Accordingly, we review the trial court' s decisions, regarding property distribution and maintenance to determine whether they are 69 Wn. App. at verities if they manifestly 328. based unreasonable or on untenable grounds or reasons. Olivares, We will not retry the facts on appeal and will accept findings of fact as are supported by substantial evidence in the record. In re Marriage of Thomas, 63 Wn. App. 658, 660, 821 P. 2d 1227 ( 1991). II. MAINTENANCE Merritt first argues that the trial court erred when it awarded Amanda maintenance. The trial court based its award on the differences in the parties' salaries, the amount of separate property, and the length of their marriage. We affirm because the trial court' s award was just and equitable in light of the relevant factors. RCW 26. 09. 090( 1) requires that the amount and duration of the maintenance award be just in light of the relevant factors. It provides a nonexhaustive list of factors: 3 43168 -8 -II a) The financial resources of the party seeking maintenance ... ; b) The time necessary to acquire sufficient education or training to enable the party seeking maintenance to find employment appropriate to his or her skill, interests, style of life, and other attendant circumstances; c) The standard of living established during the marriage ... ; d) The duration of the marriage ... ; e) The age, physical and emotional condition, and financial obligations of the spouse ... seeking maintenance; and f) The ability her needs and of the spouse ... financial from whom maintenance is sought to meet his or obligations while meeting those of the spouse ... seeking maintenance. Maintenance is not merely a means of providing bare necessities; rather, it RCW 26. 09. 090( 1). is a flexible tool by which the parties' standards of living maybe equalized for an appropriate period of time. In RCW 26. 09. 090( 1)( re Marriage of Washburn, 101 Wn.2d 168, 179, 677 P. 2d 152 ( 1984) ( citing c), ( d)). Here, the trial court considered all of the factors under RCW 26. 09. 090 in awarding Amanda maintenance. The court Merritt' s monthly income is parties had a long -term found the about marriage, ( following twice the specific amount of factors particularly significant: ( 1) Amanda' s monthly income, ( 2) the 3) that although Merritt failed to provide evidence regarding his cancer prognosis or treatment, the court made maintenance modifiable based on his health and ability to continue working, ( 4) Merritt will receive a " significant amount" of separate property and Amanda will not, and ( 5) both parties are in their mid -o -late fifties and currently t able to work. Clerk' s Papers ( CP) at 133. Merritt argues that the trial court made several errors when it awarded Amanda maintenance. First, he contends that the disparity between the parties' monthly incomes is less 0 43168 -8 -II than it appears considering Amanda' s potential for a Appellant' s Br. at 29. longer " work life." But the trial court factored Amanda' s potentially longer work life into its decision: it specifically considered the parties' ages and ability to continue working, and it made the maintenance subject to modification after Merritt retires. We see no error on this issue. Second, Merritt argues that the trial court failed to consider the impact of his cancer. The trial court considered Merritt' s cancer but found that he failed to provide evidence regarding his prognosis or treatment. This finding is supported by the record. At the hearing, Merritt testified that he was not currently undergoing treatment and that his cancer more had not yet impacted his work. information regarding his diagnosis. and possible side effects that In his motion for reconsideration, Merritt included He stated his treatment options, noting that they had he currently had limited sick leave. However, he did not include information about which treatment he was opting for or how treatment would affect his finances or ability to based on work. Nonetheless, the trial court concluded that maintenance could be modified Merritt' s health and ability to work. Substantial evidence supports the court' s determination. Third, Merritt asserts that the trial court failed to properly weigh Amanda' s education and ability to support automatically herself. The receiving spouse' s capacity for self support does not preclude a maintenance award. Washburn, 101 Wn. 2d at 178. Instead, the ability of the spouse seeking maintenance to independently meet her needs is only one of the factors the court considers. 3 Washburn, 101 Wn.2d In his brief, Merritt argues, " at 178 -79. Here, the court found that Amanda had the Nowhere in its multiple decisions does the trial court indicate that it considered any of [the evidence regarding his cancer] or even that it read the medical records that had been submitted." Appellant' s Br. at 30. But the trial court stated that it considered all of the information Merritt submitted, including the declarations filed with his motion for reconsideration, and his medical records were never admitted into evidence. 5 43168 -8 -II ability to work, but it also found that Merritt' s monthly income was greater than Amanda' s, Merritt had years. more separate property than Amanda, and their marriage was long term over 20 The trial court did not err when it awarded Amanda maintenance under these circumstances where her ability to support herself is only one factor in the analysis. Fourth, Merritt argues that the trial court inaccurately valued his separate property. In its oral ruling, the trial court stated that Merritt was going to be inheriting " somewhere in the nature of up to $ 325, 000" from his friend is evidence in the record to and " close support bath to $ 200, 000" from his of these figures. mother. CP at 247. There The initial evidence presented regarding Merritt' s friend' s estate was a certified copy of his friend' s will, which provided that Merritt will receive 10 percent of the $ 3. 2 million estate. Although Merritt offered evidence from the estate' s attorney estimating the value of the estate at $ 2.2 million, he delayed delivering this information to Amanda and the court and he admitted that it was only an estimate. On appeal, Merritt relies on the additional information about the estate filed with his motion for reconsideration. A trial court has discretion to consider or not consider evidence submitted with for a motion reconsideration. Chen v. State, 86 Wn. App. 183, 192, 937 P. 2d 612 ( 1997). Here, the trial court expressed frustration at Merritt' s delay in presenting information about the estate and refused to reconsider its initial findings. The trial court acted within its discretion to not consider evidence that Merritt had access to before the initial hearing. The evidence also supports the trial court' s estimate regarding Merritt' s mother' s estate. Merritt testified that he estate. would be receiving between $ 180, 000 and $ 190, 000 from his mother' s He purposefully delayed closing her estate until after the divorce proceeding, which forced the court to estimate his inheritance rather than using evidence of what he actually received. Even if these estimates prove to be too high, Merritt still received more separate 0 43168 -8 -II property than Amanda he property and awarded also was an $ 83, 000 retirement account as his separate he has not shown that receiving a lower figure than the court' s estimate would affect his ability to pay maintenance. Finally, Merritt contends that the trial court erred when it determined that it had an obligation to place the parties in equal financial positions. But one of the goals of maintenance is to the equalize parties' standards of living. Washburn, 101 Wn. 2d at 179. Moreover, the trial court considered all of the statutory factors, and there is no indication that the court gave improper weight to the parties' standard of living. The trial court stated that, in addition to the parties' standard of living during the marriage, it considered the parties' incomes, the length of the marriage, the parties' separate Merritt' s property, health, and the parties' ages and employment. The trial court' s analysis was not unreasonable or based on untenable grounds, and we affirm. III. HOUSE Merritt next argues that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to list the family house for sale. Merritt did not present evidence at trial that he was incapable of maintaining the Further, the housing market was down and the parties were not able to work together to house. list the house for sale; accordingly, the trial court did not err when it awarded Merritt the house and denied his motion to list it for sale. At trial, Merritt testified that he was currently living in the house because Amanda thought it would be " less disruptive" Proceedings ( RP) Report of would also be willing to at keep for him while he was receiving his cancer treatment. 69. He said that he would be willing to sell the house, but he it let Amanda or keep it. Amanda testified that she would be willing to list the house for sale, but the parties were not able to agree on how much the house 7 43168 -8 -II was worth. Amanda took the position that the house was worth about $ 360, 000 to $ 300, 000 and Merritt took the position that the house was worth about $ 250, 000. The trial court awarded Merritt the house, which it valued at about $280, 000, and ordered him to pay Amanda 75 house for sale. percent of the equity. Amanda opposed the post trial motion to list the The trial court determined that it would be unreasonable to force the sale of the house when the housing market is down and when the parties had such different ideas of the house' s value and had already failed to come to an agreement about selling the house outside of court. It affirmed its award to Merritt, finding that he was in a better position to maintain the house. Merritt challenges the trial court' s finding that he is in a better position to maintain the house. He that argues Merritt had been his health living in and will make maintenance maintaining the house. burdensome. At the time of the trial, Although he testified that he would eventually have to undergo treatment, he did not provide the court with specific information regarding his chosen treatment and its effects. He also stated that he was delaying treatment and that his diagnosis had not yet impacted his ability to work. Substantial evidence supports the trial court' s finding that Merritt could maintain the house. Moreover, Merritt acknowledged the poor state of the real estate market and the record establishes that the parties could not. agree on listing the house. The trial court did not err when it denied Merritt' s motion to list the house. See High v. High, 41 Wn.2d 811, 823, 252 P. 2d 272 195 3) ( finding that it was manifestly unreasonable for the trial court to force the sale of property when the value was down but could increase in the future). 4 4 Hopefully, the generally improving housing market will benefit the parties here, but we have no information on the record about that. E'? 43168 -8 - II STUDENT LOANS IV. Finally, Merritt argues that the trial court erred when it ordered him to pay a portion of Amanda' share of loans. He contends that the decision was unfair because it further reduced his s student the property. But the trial court does not have to equally distribute property and debts, and, here, the distribution was just and equitable considering the length and circumstances of the marriage and Merritt' s financial resources. The trial court must consider the following when distributing personal property and debts in a and dissolution proceeding: ( 1) the nature extent of the separate economic circumstances at property, ( 3) and extent of the duration the community property, ( 2) the nature of the marriage, and ( the time of the property division. RCW 26. 09. 080. 4) each spouses' The trial court is not required to divide property equally so long as the division is just and equitable in light of the relevant trial factors. court may In re Marriage of Mansour, 126 Wn. consider equal Marriage of Fernau, 39 Wn. education App. App. opportunities 1, when 14, 106 P. 3d 768 ( 2004). distributing 695, 705, 694 P. 2d 1092 ( 1984) ( property. The In re quoting Washburn, 101 Wn.2d at 181 n.4). The trial court ordered Merritt to pay Amanda' s $ 12, 452 student loan balance because ( 1) he has greater financial resources ( 2) and it was " fair" for Amanda to have the same opportunity as Merritt, who also received a graduate degree during 0 the marriage. CP at 252. This decision is 43168 -8 -II not unreasonable where the parties had a long term marriage, Merritt has more separate property, and Amanda worked to help cover living expenses while Merritt was earning his graduate degree. We 5 affirm. ATTORNEY FEES V. Merritt argues that the trial court erred when it awarded Amanda $7, 000 in attorney fees. Amanda argues that the trial court erred when it denied her motion for reconsideration requesting attorney fees. additional The trial court did not err when it awarded Amanda attorney fees because she demonstrated a financial need and Merritt had the ability to pay. The trial court also properly exercised its discretion when it denied Amanda' s motion for reconsideration. We review a trial court' s grant or denial of attorney fees and a motion for reconsideration to determine if the decision was manifestly unreasonable or based on untenable grounds or reasons. Carroll In v. re Marriage of Freeman, 169 Wn.2d 664, 676, 239 P. 3d 557 ( 2010); State ex rel. In a dissolution proceeding, courts Junker, 79 Wn. 2d 12, 26, 482 P. 2d 775 ( 1971). have discretion to order one party to pay the other party' s costs and attorney fees. RCW 26. 09. 140. When awarding attorney fees, courts examine the arguable merit of the issues and the parties' financial resources. In re Marriage of Griffin, 114 Wn.2d 772, 779, 791 P. 2d 519 1990). Here, the trial court ordered Merritt to pay $ 7, 000 of Amanda' s attorney fees, based on her need and his ability to pay. Amanda filed a motion for reconsideration requesting more fees after Merritt appealed to this court. The trial court denied her motion, reiterating that its award 5 Merritt also argues that the trial court erred by suggesting that he had no authority to unilaterally use community funds to reimburse their son and fund their daughter' s college account. But Merritt admits that it is " unclear" what impact this had on the trial court' s decision. at 41. And the trial court did not rely on Merritt' s actions regarding the children' s accounts to justify any of its decisions. Appellant' s Br. 10 43168 -8 -II was based on the parties' respective financial positions and noting that this was the third motion for reconsideration and an appeal was already pending. As we discuss above, based on their relative incomes and separate property, Merritt had the ability to pay and Amanda attorney fees. discretion to had the need. The trial court did not err when it awarded her Additionally, the trial court did not, as Amanda argues, refuse to exercise its reconsider the amount of the fees. The trial court did state that its decision on this motion would likely not matter in light of the pending appeal, but it made a ruling denying reconsideration. We affirm the trial court' s attorney fee award. Both adequately parties addressed request attorney fees on appeal. the disparities between the parties' The trial court' s attorney fee award incomes. We decline to award further fees. Affirmed. A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2. 06. 040, it is so ordered. We concur: Maxa, J. Schindler, J. 11
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.
