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

U NPUBLISHED OPINION

P ENNELL , C. J.

— Ruth Watson, now known as Ruth Maidon, and William Watson

cross appeal the ter ms of an order dissolving the ir 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 IIINo. 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 res ide 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 withd rew $28,200 in funds from a joint bank account she held with Mr. Watson . S he alleges to have provided $19,000 from these funds to Mr. Watson to ward purchase of a “Raptor” fifth
wheel RV ( recreational vehicle ) . Mr. Watson denies this allegation.
A bench tr ial was held in April 2019. At trial, th e court permitted Mr. Watson to
call a witness who he had failed to disclose to Ms. Maidon prior to trial. T he trial court ultimately provid ed Ms. Maidon $283,736.65 in assets and assessed $10,868.39 in liabilities, f or a net award of $272,868.26. It provid ed Mr. Watson $303,003.35 in assets
and assessed $13,192.39 in liabilities, f or a net award of $289,810.96. T he 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 a ppeal from the final divorce order.No. 37156

- 5

- III In re Marriage of Watson

3 ANALYS IS Previously u ndisclosed w itness
Ms. Maidon c hallenges 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 fo r tactic al 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 tr ial 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 eac h party to find employment, and Mr. Watson’s ability to make spousa l 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 dec isions 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 m aintain her standard of living. While the trial court could have extended
its maint enance award, it was not required to do so. Th ere was no abuse of discretion. Credibility of t estimony Ms. Maidon contends the trial court erred by findi ng her testimony not credible concerning the use of her withdrawal of $28,200 from the joint bank accou nt

. Again, w e 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 ar e neither fact finder s nor in a position
to second guess the trial court’s credibility determinat ion. The decision regarding the $28,200 must stand. Property d ivision Both parties dispute the trial court’s disposition of property. Ms. Maidon contends she is entitled to a large r 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 ear ning potential and disability. Mr. Watson contends in his cross appeal that the trial court erred by including in his community award the separate propertyNo. 37156

- 5

- III In re Marriage of Watson

5 in his individual retirement accounts , thus inflatin g the net worth of the award he received
and re quiring 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 determ ining 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 circumstan ces defeats her criticisms of the trial cou rt’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.