Case ID: wash-2d_70/html/1019-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam. —", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[No. 38857.
    Department One.
    March 23, 1967.]
    Beverly Wolford, Respondent, v. Richard Wolford, Appellant.
      
    
    
      Wettrick, Toulouse, Lirhus & Hove and Arnold J. Barer, for appellant.
    
      Welts & Welts, by David A. Welts, for respondent.
    
      
      Reported in 425 P.2d 897.
    
   Per Curiam. —

This is a divorce action. The husband is dissatisfied with the property division, the amount of child support allowed, and, particularly, with the award of alimony.

We find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in any of the areas of dissatisfaction. The judgment is affirmed. 
      
      We have not overlooked the request by counsel for the wife for additional attorneys’ fees on this appeal. No showing has been made warranting such action. See Gibson v. Von Olnhausen, 43 Wn.2d 803, 263 P.2d 954 (1953).