IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON In the Matter ofthe Marriage of BONNIE F. AUBUCHON, Respondent, ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 71167-9-1 DIVISION ONE UNPUBLISHED OPINION c=>

CZ r~ ro CM —t_j CJ -r-j
and ) ) 3E» 3C VAN D. AUBUCHON, ) up CD Appellant. ) ) FILED: July 27, 2015 UD *TM>*—


### Trickey, J. — In a dissolution, a trial court has broad discretion to equitably 

### distribute property. Atrial court considers all the circumstances of the marriage, as well

as the future needs of the parties. Here, the wife's primary sources of income were 

### intricately tied in with the home. Accordingly, the trial court did not errin awarding the 

### family home to thewife, subject to a lien in favor of thehusband payable in five years. Nor did the trial court abuse its discretion in determining the value of the home and in 

### splitting theequity 55/45. Weaffirm thetrial court'sdisposition ofproperty.
FACTS 

### Bonnie and Van AuBuchon were married for 42 years and have three adult children. At the time ofthe dissolution trial, the only community property of value was 

### their residence. Neither party had any real or personal separate property. 

### The trial courtrejected the husband's market analysis and valued the home at $225,000, consistentwith the wife's market analysis. The courtfound the equity in the home to be $38,452.11 and awarded a 55/45 split in the wife's favor, payable by either 

### the sale orrefinancing ofthehome within five yearsfrom the date ofentry ofthe decreeNo. 71167-9-1/2 

### of dissolution. The court awarded the residence to the wife, requiring her to make all the mortgage payments in a timely manner. Van AuBuchon appeals, contending the trial court erred in valuing the asset, in dividing the property, and in permitting the wife to remain in possession ofthe property for five years. ANALYSIS A court has broad discretion in valuing property in a dissolution action, and its valuation will not be reversed on appeal absent a manifest abuse of discretion. In re Marriage ofRockwell. 141 Wn. App. 234, 242-43,170 P.3d 572 (2007). Amanifestabuse of discretion occurs when the discretion was exercised on untenable grounds. In re Marriage of Muhammad. 153 Wn.2d 795, 803, 108 P.3d 779 (2005). A trial court does 

### not abuse its discretion by assigning values to property withinthe scope ofevidence, in re Marriage of Soriano. 31 Wn. App. 432, 436, 643 P.2d 450 (1982). Factual findings 

### supported by substantial evidence will not be disturbed on appeal. Thorndike v. Hesperian Orchards. Inc.. 54 Wn.2d 570, 575, 343 P.2d 183 (1959). 

### Here, both parties submitted comparative market analyses (CMA). The trial court 

### found the wife's marketanalysis performed by Northwest Market to be more reliable than the one submitted by AuBuchon. The wife's CMA was performed after an in home 

### inspection. Comparable sales in the neighborhood ranged from $216,549 to $319,000. The husband's CMA, however, was a drive-by appraisal comparing higherend properties, that included view homes and homes that had extensive remodeling. The court found 

### those properties were not comparable. Additionally, the husband's CMA did notinclude the interior condition ofthe home, including the fact thatthe trimwas all down, carpetingNo. 71167-9-1/3 

### had notbeen replaced in 30 years, and there was a significant rat infestation which would cost approximately $3,500 to correct. Relying on section 4.16 of the Washington Community Property Deskbook. AuBuchon argues that the property needed to be valued at the date ofthe trial and that the trial court erred in relying on the wife's CMAbecause itwas performed four and onehalf months earlier. But a trial court has broad discretion to choose a valuation date that is equitable even ifthat valuation was done more than four months before trial. Koher v. Morgan, 93 Wn. App. 398, 404, 968 P.2d 920 (1998) (citing Luckerv. Lucker. 71 Wn.2d 

### 165, 167-68, 426 P.2d 981 (1967)). So even though AuBuchon's CMA was performed within a month of the trial, the evidence is more than sufficient to support the court's valuation ofthe property inaccordance withthe wife's CMA. 

### AuBuchon next argues that the comparable sales in the wife's CMA were from distressed properties. However, the CMA used five properties as comparable, only one 

### ofwhichwas a bank owned propertyto be soldas is. That propertywas listed at$210,000 and sold for $216,549. The otherfour properties listedas comparablewere notdistressed 

### properties and in many instances contained updates and modifications, none ofwhich were present in the home at issue here. Furthermore, AuBuchon did not dispute that evidence at the time of trial and no challenges to the wife's CMA's pricing were made, otherthan wanting the trialcourtto adopt his CMA. 

### AuBuchon also sought to introduce into evidence a certified appraisal that hiswife had obtained for her attorney. He did notseek to discover or request the appraisal until 

### thewifewastestifying at thedissolution proceeding. The courtupheld counsel's objection to its admission as part of the attorney work product. ER 502 (f)(2) defines "work-productNo. 71167-9-1/4 protection" as applying to "tangible material (or its intangible equivalent) prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial." The appraisal clearly falls within that parameter. AuBuchon could have at any time obtained his own certified appraisal, butfailed to do so. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the value of the home to be $225,000. AuBuchon next contends that the trial court erred in not splitting the equity 50/50 and in awarding the home to the wife for five years before he can reach his equity. The 

### wife is 64 years old and has Graves' disease. She had endometrial cancer and suffers from depression and anxiety. At trial she testified that she had an art studio inher home 

### which she uses to generate income. Additionally, she rented rooms inthe house to her

son and someexchange students enabling her to cobbletogetherthe mortgage payment. Under these circumstances, the court did not abuse its discretion in awarding a 55/45 

### split of the equity. The recorddemonstrates that the trial court considered AuBuchon's requestfor a 50/50split, disagreedwith his analysis, and entered a ruling withinthe range ofevidence represented at trial. Contrary to AuBuchon's bare assertions, the trial court 

### is not required to demonstrate mathematical precision in order to make an equitable 

### propertydivision. In re Marriage of Crossetto. 82 Wn. App. 545, 556, 918 P.21d 954 (1996). AuBuchon has not demonstrated any abuse of discretion in the trial court's division ofthe property. AuBuchon contends that the court erred in permitting the wife to remain on the 

### propertyand in notrequiring the house to be soldimmediately. He objects to the fact that it is his name that is on the mortgage and his credit will be damaged if he is not paid 

### immediately. The court determined that the family home could not be appropriatelyNo. 71167-9-1/5 divided. RCW 26.09.080 states that a trial court must dispose ofthe marital property in whatever manner "shall appearjust and equitable after considering all relevant factors." The trial court considered all of the factors of the parties, recognizing that the wife was unable to obtain a mortgage at the present time to pay AuBuchon his equitable share 

### immediately. To protect AuBuchon's interest, however, the court required the wife to make timely payments on the mortgage and provided thatfailure to do so would result in the immediate sale ofthe home. This was clearlywithinthe equitable powers ofthe court. 

### Finally, AuBuchon contends that the trial court granted him a continuance but then 

### failed to permit him to present the additional testimony. The matter was set for 

### presentation of the final orders. AuBuchon's request for a continuance of presentation listed differences that he had with his wife's submission and a requestto "formallyaskthe 

### Court for the opportunity to [be] heard on evidence of fact in testimony which is not consistentwith claims made bythe Petitioneras to, but notlimitedto,improvements made to the residence over the years."1 At what was to be the scheduled hearing, the court granted the continuance, but 

### clearly informed AuBuchon that the sole reasonfor the hearing was to reduce towriting what the judge had already decided orally. AuBuchon had an opportunity at trial to contest the wife's testimony and evidence, butfailed to do so. He cannot nowpresent

new evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion.

1 Clerk's Papers at 32.No. 71167-9-1/6 

### Because there was substantial evidence to supportthe trialcourt's findings of fact and conclusions of law, we affirm the trial court's disposition of property.


## i/*»ck<s\i t^l

WE CONCUR: 

# %^AWQQv.