IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION ONE

In the Matter of the Marriage of ) No. 80553-3-I

)

COLIN D. HOFMANN, )

)

Respondent, )

)

and )

)

KAREN M. HOFMANN, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION

)

Appellant. ) 

)

VERELLEN, J. — In this dissolution of marriage, Karen Hofmann appeals the 

trial court determination that a residence is encumbered by approximately 

$294,166 that she and her former husband, Colin Hofmann, owe to Colin’s parents 

for a down payment loan on that residence. Karen contends that she and Colin 

have repaid the bulk of the down payment loan from the proceeds of a sale of 

another house. Because substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that 

Karen and Colin have not made any payments to Colin’s parents toward the down 

payment loan, we affirm. 

FACTS

Appellant Karen Hofmann and respondent Colin Hofmann married in 2008. 

In 2018, Colin filed for dissolution of the marriage.
No. 80553-3-I/2

2

Trial regarding dissolution of the marriage, child support, the parenting plan,

and related issues occurred over 10 days in May, June and July 2019. 

On August 8, 2019, the trial court issued detailed findings of fact and 

conclusions of law. The findings and conclusions established the following facts 

relevant to the issue on appeal. In 2012, Karen and Colin purchased a house at 

6669H N.E. Windermere Road (Windermere house) with the assistance of Colin’s 

parents, Betsy and Doug Hofmann (senior Hofmanns). The senior Hofmanns 

provided a 15 percent down payment on the house. The senior Hofmanns are 

equal obligors on the mortgage with the parties and are listed as co-owners on the 

title to the property. All mortgage payments and taxes have been paid by Colin 

and Karen. Betsy Hofmann testified credibly that her understanding was that the 

arrangement for the Windermere house was the same as for her other children 

where she and her husband had loaned a down payment with the expectation of 

being repaid. The court found that Karen and Colin Hofmann have not made any 

payments to the senior Hofmanns to pay down the loan. This is the only finding 

challenged on appeal. 

Colin Hofmann was somewhat vague and evasive about his understanding 

of the terms of his parents’ contribution to the Windermere house and their 

ownership interest. Despite testifying about his frustration about having received 

no benefit from his co-ownership and work on the previous house he co-owned 

with his parents, he testified that ownership of the Windermere house was a “new 
No. 80553-3-I/3

3

adventure” and “ideas and details didn’t really come up.”1 The court did not find 

his testimony credible on this issue. Although Douglas Hofmann was called as a 

witness by Karen, neither party asked Douglas Hofmann, who is an attorney, any 

questions about his understanding of the transaction and of the senior Hofmanns’ 

interest in the Windermere house.

The court concluded that the parties’ interest in the Windermere house was 

community property and awarded it to Colin. The court further concluded, 

“Although this court cannot determine the respective interests of the elder and 

junior Hofmanns, for purposes of the equitable division of assets and liabilities in 

this case, the court finds that it is equitable to treat the Windermere home as 

owned by Colin and Karen Hofmann and encumbered both by the mortgage and 

by a loan obligation to the senior Hofmanns related to the down payment.”2

The property division chart, attached to the findings of fact and conclusions 

of law, awarded Colin the Windermere house and listed as a debt regarding the 

house “less down payment loan owed to Doug & Betsy Hofmann” in the amount of 

$294,166.3

Karen appeals. 

ANALYSIS

Karen challenges the amount of the $294,166 debt to the senior Hofmanns 

for the down payment of the Windermere house. Karen contends that she and 

 

1 Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 318.

2 CP at 320.

3 CP at 347.
No. 80553-3-I/4

4

Colin paid back $207,712.64 of this debt to the senior Hofmanns when they sold a 

house that Colin had bought with his parents before he married Karen, located on 

49th Avenue NE (49th Avenue house). It is undisputed on appeal that the senior 

Hofmanns received a payment of $207,712.64 when the house on 49th Avenue 

sold. The issue on appeal therefore is narrow: Whether the payment of 

$207,712.64 to the senior Hofmanns upon the sale of the 49th Avenue house was 

in repayment of their loan to Karen and Colin for the down payment on the 

Windermere house.

As an initial matter, Colin contends that we should not address this issue 

because Karen raises it for the first time on appeal. At trial, the court admitted into 

evidence the settlement statement for the sale of the 49th Avenue house, which 

reflects a payment of $207,712.64 to the senior Hofmanns. When questioned by 

his own attorney about this statement, Colin testified that his parents received 

$207,712.64. Karen questioned Colin about whether the senior Hofmanns were 

reimbursed with $207,712.64 of funds from the sale of the 49th Avenue house and 

whether his parents loaned them money to put down on the Windermere house 

until they sold the 49th Avenue house. Both Karen and Betsy Hofmann testified 

that Karen and Colin were going to repay the senior Hofmanns for the down 

payment loan on the Windermere house. 

The trial court’s findings and conclusions surrounding this issue, cited at 

length above, also reflect that the issue was at least generally raised before the 

trial court. The record does not reflect that Karen offered the trial court an exact 
No. 80553-3-I/5

5

amount that she believed she and Colin still owed the senior Hofmanns for the 

down payment loan. But the record overall is sufficient for us to review the issue.

“A property division made during the dissolution of a marriage will be 

reversed on appeal only if there is a manifest abuse of discretion.”

4

 “‘A trial court 

abuses its discretion if its decision is manifestly unreasonable or based on 

untenable grounds or untenable reasons.’”

5

I. Trial Court’s Finding re: Loan Payments

Karen challenges the trial court’s finding that “Karen and Colin Hofmann 

have not made any payments to the elder Hofmanns to pay down the 

[Windermere] loan.”6 Karen contends that substantial evidence does not support 

this finding. We disagree. 

If a party challenges a finding, we determine whether substantial evidence 

supports it.7 Substantial evidence exists if the record contains evidence of 

sufficient quantity to persuade a fair-minded, rational person of the truth of the 

declared premise.8 We then determine whether the findings of fact support the 

 

4

In re Marriage of Muhammad, 153 Wn.2d 795, 803, 108 P.3d 779 (2005)

(citing In re Marriage of Kraft, 119 Wn.2d 438, 450, 832 P.2d 871 (1992)).

5

Id. (quoting In re Marriage of Littlefield, 133 Wn.2d 39, 46-47, 940 P.2d 

1362 (1997)).

6 CP at 318.

7

In re Marriage of Griswold, 112 Wn. App. 333, 339, 48 P.3d 1018 (2002).

8

Id.
No. 80553-3-I/6

6

trial court’s conclusions of law.9 We do not review credibility determinations, which 

we leave to the trier of fact.10

The single payment Karen contends she and Colin made to the senior 

Hofmanns on the Windermere down payment loan was the $207,712.64 payment 

to the senior Hofmanns when the 49th Avenue home sold. As evidence this 

payment was in reimbursement of the Windermere down payment loan, Karen

points to the settlement statement for the sale of the 49th Avenue house. The 

HUD-1 settlement statement for the 49th Avenue house lists as a deduction in 

amount due to seller, “Payoff of second mortgage loan DOUGLAS & ELIZABETH 

HOFMANN” in the amount of $207,712.64.11 The supplemental page to the 

settlement statement reflects the same “payoff of second mortgage loan,” payment 

to Douglas and Elizabeth Hofmann for the same amount.12

There is no evidence on the face of the settlement statement connecting 

the $207,712.64 payment in any way to the Windermere down payment loan.

Nor was there any other evidence at trial that the $207,712.64 was a 

repayment for the Windermere down payment loan. Neither of the senior 

Hofmanns were questioned about the $207,712.64 payment. Karen did not testify 

regarding the $207,712.64 payment. The trial court found Colin’s “somewhat 

 

9 Landmark Dev., Inc. v. City of Roy, 138 Wn.2d 561, 573, 980 P.2d 1234 

(1999) (citing Willener v. Sweeting, 107 Wn.2d 388, 393, 730 P.2d 45 (1986)).

10 In re Marriage of Greene, 97 Wn. App. 708, 714, 986 P.2d 144 (1999)

(citing In re Marriage of Rich, 80 Wn. App. 252, 259, 907 P.2d 1234 (1996)).

11 Ex. 580.

12 Id.
No. 80553-3-I/7

7

vague and evasive” understanding of his parents’ contribution to the Windermere 

house and their ownership interest was not credible on this issue.13 We do not 

review credibility determinations, which we leave to the trier of fact.14 In any event, 

nothing about his testimony supports an inference that the $207,712.64 was 

repayment of the Windermere down payment loan.15

 

13 CP at 318.

14 Greene, 97 Wn. App. at 714.

15

 The following was Colin’s testimony on the issue when Karen questioned 

him at trial: 

Q: And so is it true we didn’t have the money to put down on the 

6669 Windermere home because we had not yet sold the 4745 

home to obtain the funding?

A: I’m not sure, Karen.

Q: Okay. Is it true that your parents loaned us they money to put 

down on the 6669 Windermere home until we sold the 4745 

home?

A: No. 

Q: Is it true they put their name on the title because they loaned us 

the money?

A: Their name was on the title because we couldn’t get approved 

by ourselves, so we decided to go after it as a group. The 

terms of that arrangement were unclear.

. . . .

Q: And is it true all excess funds for the sale of the 4745 home 

reimbursed Douglas and Elizabeth Hofmann? See No. 505.

A: I don’t know the exact terms of it, but . . . since when this house 

was purchased, I don’t recall what they put down, but they put 

down a large portion.
No. 80553-3-I/8

8

Karen argues that any mortgage the senior Hofmanns had on the 49th

Avenue house was extinguished when they quitclaimed the 49th Avenue house to 

Colin days before he married Karen in 2008. Thus, Karen contends the only loan 

remaining at the time the 49th Avenue house was sold was the Windermere down 

payment loan, so the $207,712.64 must have been payment on that loan. “‘It has 

long been the rule that a valid quitclaim deed passes all the right, title, and interest 

which the grantor has at the time of making the deed and which is capable of 

being transferred by deed, unless a contrary intent appears.’”

16

The quit claim deed states, “THE GRANTORS, Douglas A. Hofmann and 

Elizabeth B. Hofmann, husband and wife, for the purpose of exiting title, and for no 

other consideration, hereby convey and quitclaim to GRANTEE, Colin Hofmann, a 

single man, all of their right, title, and interest in and to the following described real 

estate.”17 The ambiguous purpose of “exiting title, and for no other consideration” 

does not suggest the quitclaim deed was intended to extinguish any loan or 

mortgage the senior Hofmanns may have had on the 49th Avenue house. 

 

Q: So is it true that Douglas and Elizabeth Hofmann were 

reimbursed 207,000 -- $207,712.64? 

A: That’s what it says.

Report of Proceedings (RP) (June 3, 2019) at 973-74.

16 Newport Yacht Basin Ass’n. of Condo. Owners v. Supreme Nw., Inc., 168 

Wn. App. 56, 67, 277 P.3d 18 (2012) (emphasis added) (quoting McCoy v. Lowrie, 

44 Wn.2d 483, 486, 268 P.2d 1003 (1954)).

17 Ex. 579.
No. 80553-3-I/9

9

Neither party points to testimony from any witness at trial regarding the 

intent of the quitclaim deed. Karen argues that the senior Hofmanns intended the 

quitclaim deed as a wedding gift to Colin but points to no evidence in the record to 

support this alleged intent. And there is no evidence explaining or suggesting that 

a HUD-1 settlement statement for one house including, under “Reductions In 

Amount Due To Seller,” a “payoff of second mortgage loan DOUGLAS & 

ELIZABETH HOFMANN” was a reference to a second mortgage loan on another 

property unrelated to the sale that was the subject of the HUD-1 settlement 

statement. The settlement statement’s reference to a second mortgage of 

$207,712.64 supports a reasonable inference that the amount was a second 

mortgage on the 49th Avenue house. 

Substantial evidence supports the finding that Karen and Colin have not 

made any payments to the senior Hofmanns to pay down the loan on the 

Windermere property. 

Because we affirm the trial court’s finding that Colin and Karen have not 

made any payments to the senior Hofmanns on the Windermere down payment 

loan, we reject Karen’s argument that listing the debt in the full amount of 

$294,166 was a clerical error. An error is clerical when the judgment does not 

embody the court’s intention.18 Listing the amount of the down payment debt as 

$294,166 embodied the trial court’s intent to divide the parties’ community property 

 

18 Presidential Estates Apartment Assocs. v. Barrett, 129 Wn.2d 320, 326, 

917 P.2d 100 (1996).
No. 80553-3-I/10

10

equally between them. The court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Colin the 

Windermere house subject to an encumbrance in favor of the senior Hofmanns in 

the amount of $294,166. 

II. Attorney Fees

Karen and Colin both request that we award them attorney fees on appeal 

pursuant to RCW 26.09.140, but on the showing made we decline to make an 

award to either based on need and ability to pay. Karen also refers to RAP 14.2, 

and RAP 18.1, but she has not prevailed on appeal. We decline to award Karen 

attorney fees. 

Colin also requests attorney fees on appeal on the basis that Karen was 

intransigent. Colin has not shown that Karen was intransigent. We decline to 

award Colin attorney fees. 

We affirm.

WE CONCUR: