IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION THREE

In the Matter of the Marriage of:

RUTH EVE WATSON,

Appellant / Cross-Respondent,

and

WILLIAM MORRIS WATSON,

Respondent / Cross-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 37156-5-III

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

PENNELL, C.J. — Ruth Watson, now known as Ruth Maidon, and William Watson 

cross appeal the terms of an order dissolving their marriage. We affirm.

FACTS

Ms. Maidon petitioned in November 2016 for dissolution of her 12-year marriage 

to Mr. Watson. Throughout the marriage, Mr. Watson worked as an electrician and 

supplied the household’s only income. Ms. Maidon was a homemaker and took care of 

the family’s finances. Ms. Maidon’s earning potential was limited due to her education 

level (she possessed only a general educational diploma) and health struggles (she has an 

autoimmune disorder).

FILED

AUGUST 31, 2021

In the Office of the Clerk of Court

WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
No. 37156-5-III

In re Marriage of Watson

2

A temporary order provided Ms. Maidon with $2,700 per month in spousal 

maintenance and the marital home in Washington. However, Ms. Maidon left to reside in 

Florida over the winter of 2017-18, and Mr. Watson was granted possession of the home. 

Subsequently, Ms. Maidon began renting a property in Florida and residing there full

time. In the months preceding the dissolution petition, Ms. Maidon also withdrew 

$28,200 in funds from a joint bank account she held with Mr. Watson. She alleges to have

provided $19,000 from these funds to Mr. Watson toward purchase of a “Raptor” fifth 

wheel RV (recreational vehicle). Mr. Watson denies this allegation.

A bench trial was held in April 2019. At trial, the court permitted Mr. Watson to 

call a witness who he had failed to disclose to Ms. Maidon prior to trial. The trial court 

ultimately provided Ms. Maidon $283,736.65 in assets and assessed $10,868.39 in 

liabilities, for a net award of $272,868.26. It provided Mr. Watson $303,003.35 in assets 

and assessed $13,192.39 in liabilities, for a net award of $289,810.96. The court also 

ordered an equalization payment of $8,471.35 to be paid to Ms. Maidon. It found 

Ms. Maidon’s testimony not credible concerning the use of $28,200 she withdrew from 

the joint account. The court awarded Ms. Maidon spousal maintenance of $2,200 per 

month until December 2019.

Both Ms. Maidon and Mr. Watson appeal from the final divorce order.
No. 37156-5-III

In re Marriage of Watson

3

ANALYSIS

Previously undisclosed witness

Ms. Maidon challenges the trial court’s decision allowing a previously undisclosed 

witness (Frank Newell) to testify at trial. We find no abuse of discretion.1 There is no 

evidence Mr. Watson withheld Mr. Newell’s name for tactical reasons or in violation of a 

court order. Mr. Newell’s testimony was brief and limited to issues previously testified to

by Ms. Maidon. Introduction of Mr. Newell’s testimony did not materially disadvantage 

Ms. Maidon. We will not disturb the trial court’s decision to allow the testimony.

Spousal maintenance

Ms. Maidon claims the trial court abused its discretion in limiting spousal 

maintenance to eight months posttrial. We disagree. The trial court explicitly listed the

statutory factors of RCW 26.09.090 prior to providing its ruling on spousal maintenance. 

It considered the age and physical condition of Ms. Maidon and Mr. Watson, the duration 

of their marriage, the ability of each party to find employment, and Mr. Watson’s ability 

to make spousal support payments. The court’s award of $2,200 per month was based on 

Ms. Maidon’s and Mr. Watson’s testimony on their expenses, and was calculated to allow 

 1 We review a trial court’s evidentiary decisions for abuse of discretion. State v. 

Quaale, 182 Wn.2d 191, 196, 340 P.3d 213 (2014).
No. 37156-5-III

In re Marriage of Watson

4

Ms. Maidon to maintain her standard of living. While the trial court could have extended 

its maintenance award, it was not required to do so. There was no abuse of discretion.

Credibility of testimony

Ms. Maidon contends the trial court erred by finding her testimony not credible 

concerning the use of her withdrawal of $28,200 from the joint bank account. Again, we 

disagree. The parties disputed the issue of whether Ms. Maidon used the $28,200 or gave 

most of it to Mr. Watson. The court was tasked with deciding which party was more 

credible and it ruled in favor of Mr. Watson. We are neither fact finders nor in a position 

to second guess the trial court’s credibility determination. The decision regarding the 

$28,200 must stand.

Property division

Both parties dispute the trial court’s disposition of property. Ms. Maidon contends 

she is entitled to a larger equalization payment because the trial court erroneously 

included in her community property award the $28,200 she withdrew from the joint bank 

account she held with Mr. Watson. She also claims the distribution was insufficient in 

light of her limited earning potential and disability. Mr. Watson contends in his cross

appeal that the trial court erred by including in his community award the separate property
No. 37156-5-III

In re Marriage of Watson

5

in his individual retirement accounts, thus inflating the net worth of the award he received 

and requiring him to make an equalization payment to Ms. Maidon. We reject both 

claims.

As previously stated, the trial court was entitled to credit Mr. Watson’s claim that 

Ms. Maidon appropriated the money she withdrew from the parties’ joint bank account. 

As a result, Ms. Maidon’s criticism of the court’s equalization payment fails.

The parties’ complaints about the amount of the trial court’s ultimate distribution 

decision also fail. The court properly took into account Mr. Watson’s separate property 

in determining a “just and equitable” distribution of property. RCW 26.09.080. Mr. 

Watson’s retirement accounts constituted a sizeable portion of the property before the 

court. Given Ms. Maidon’s limited earning potential and health problems, it was not an 

abuse of discretion for the trial court to consider Mr. Watson’s separate interests in the 

retirement accounts when calculating a fair and just final distribution. At the same time, 

the fact that the court’s final distribution accounted for Ms. Maidon’s circumstances 

defeats her criticisms of the trial court’s final award as inadequate.

CONCLUSION

The dissolution order is affirmed.
No. 37156-5-III

In re Marriage of Watson

6

A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the 

Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to 

RCW 2.06.040.

_________________________________

Pennell, C.J.

WE CONCUR:

______________________________

Fearing, J.

______________________________

Lawrence-Berrey, J.