Opinion ID: 1423733
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Cost of Sale Deduction.

Text: Donna argues that the court erred in allowing a ten percent cost of sale deduction where no sale was contemplated. The Washington Court of Appeals considered the propriety of the cost of sale deduction in In re Marriage of Berg, 47 Wash. App. 754, 737 P.2d 680 (1987). The court held: In order to justify deduction for costs of sale, there must be evidence in the record (1) showing that the party who will receive the asset intends an imminent sale, and (2) supporting the estimated costs of sale. Id. 737 P.2d at 683. See also In re Marriage of Martin, 32 Wash. App. 92, 645 P.2d 1148, 1151 (1982) (holding that the allowance for sale costs at a home was improper where there was no evidence home was going to be sold); In re Marriage of Kopplin, 74 Or. App. 368, 703 P.2d 251 (1985) (disallowing a cost of sale deduction where there was no evidence of spouse's intent to sell real property awarded to him). There is nothing in the record indicating that Robert intended to liquidate McDaniel Trucking or the Span-Alaska partnership. In fact, the trial court awarded these assets to Robert so he could continue operating them. [3] The trial court erred in allowing this deduction. [4]