Court Opinion

ID: 9856580
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:51:14.292683+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:35.967779
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
McQUADE, Justice.
The petition for rehearing in the above entitled action was granted and reargued. The Court has reviewed the record, considered the arguments presented by counsel, and we continue to adhere to the views expressed and the conclusion reached in our earlier opinion.
The petition for rehearing revealed some confusion by the parties as to the means of determining on remand whether the community was adequately compensated for the labor of Raymond Speer. To determine if Raymond Speer had been adequately compensated for his services rendered to the corporation, the salaries of other business executives with similar responsibilities and skills located within the Pacific Northwest would be relevant evidence to be considered by the trial court. The trial court is not limited in its inquiry to other salaried wage earners. What it would cost to hire a person of Raymond Speer’s capabilities is only one element for the trial court to consider in arriving at a determination of whether the community was adequately compensated.
No costs.
DONALDSON, and BAKES, JJ., concur.
SHEPARD, C. J., and McFADDEN, J., adhere to their views previously expressed.