Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealtrialwillcorporationcredibility
appealtrialmotionwilldivorcecredibility

Related Cases

Wilton Corp. v. Ashland Castings Corp., 188 F.3d 670, 44 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1035, 1999 Fed.App. 0304P
View Case »
In re Link, 713 S.W.2d 487
View Case »
Taylor v. F.D.I.C., 132 F.3d 753, 328 U.S.App.D.C. 52
View Case »
Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152, 116 S.Ct. 2074, 135 L.Ed.2d 457, 64 USLW 4531, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4426, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7217
View Case »
United States v. Graf, 827 F.3d 581
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

In re Marriage of Crivello, Not Reported in P.3d, 103 Wash.App. 1019, 2000 WL 1668014

Facts

James and Janet Crivello were married in December 1982 and filed for dissolution in May 1997. At the time of trial in August 1998, they had three children, with one still dependent. James, a chiropractor, had a monthly net income of $7,509, while Janet earned approximately $1,122 per month working for United Airlines. The trial court had previously ordered James to pay $6,500 per month in undifferentiated support, which he contested, claiming financial inability to meet the obligations.

Janet filed a petition to dissolve the marriage in May 1997. The couple had previously married and divorced. The first marriage commenced in 1974 and was formally dissolved in January 1981.

Issue

Did the trial court abuse its discretion in its temporary support order, exclusion of James's witnesses and exhibits, property division, and maintenance and child support awards?

James assigns error to the court commissioner's decision to deny his motion to modify the temporary order, as well as the superior court judge's order affirming the commissioner's decision.

Rule

Trial court decisions in dissolution proceedings will seldom be changed on appeal; the spouse who challenges such decisions must show that the trial court manifestly abused its discretion. The court must consider all relevant factors in making a just and equitable division of property.

Trial court decisions in dissolution proceedings will seldom be changed on appeal; the spouse who challenges such decisions must show that the trial court manifestly abused its discretion.

Analysis

The court found that James had significant credibility issues, supported by evidence of his financial circumstances and income from his chiropractic practice and corporation. The trial court's decision to exclude James's witnesses and exhibits was based on his willful violation of a pretrial order. The characterization of property as community was upheld, as the court found that the assets were acquired during the marriage and that James failed to provide clear evidence to support his claims of separate property.

In support of its decision to deny James's motion for review, the trial court here found only that James had 'significant credibility issues.' This finding is supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the trial court's decisions, concluding that there was no abuse of discretion in the temporary support order, exclusion of evidence, property division, or maintenance and child support awards.

We affirm.

Who won?

Janet Crivello prevailed in the case as the court upheld the trial court's decisions, which favored her in the support and property division.

Janet received the house proceeds and the commercial building. The net value of James's award was $370,501. The net value of Janet's award was $374,671.

You must be