Court Opinion

ID: 4762618
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-08-12 17:57:52.473876+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:09:02.256611
License: Public Domain

Korsmo, C.J.
¶27 (dissenting) While I agree with the majority that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the partition ruling, in apportioning the personal property, or in the attorney fee award, I disagree that the court could properly discount one of the parcels but not the others. I would remand to apply a discount to all parcels that were subject at the time of partition to an ownership interest by someone other than the parties to this litigation.
¶28 It is one thing to ignore Arlyne Kelsey’s interests in the parcels for purposes of partition. It was a very practical approach and simplified the problem for the court, the appraiser, and the parties. For those same reasons it would even have been fine to ignore her ownership interests in deciding whether or not to discount the property values. However, it was unfair to discount some property on the basis that someone other than one of the brothers owned a portion of a parcel, but refuse to apply that same principle to property partially owned by Arlyne.
*371¶29 The purpose for discounting the value of the Stine property (parcels 1, 2, 11, and 12) awarded to Craig and Donna Kelsey was to recognize that they did not have the full value of that parcel because it was partially owned by their cousins. That same principle applies to each of the parcels, whether awarded to the Craig or Dennis Kelsey families, that Arlyne had an ownership interest in at the time of the partition.2 By using different valuation principles depending upon whom the ownership interest was shared with, the court effectively grossly overvalued the parcels partially co-owned by Arlyne by ignoring her interest, with the result that Janice Kelsey owed Craig and Donna Kelsey a larger transfer payment than she should have made. As the majority notes, the appraiser concluded quite appropriately that discounting properties due to fractional ownership reduces their value. The reduced value to Craig and Donna of the Stine property due to their cousins’ ownership interests was recognized by the discount. Failing to give that discount to the parcels co-owned with Arlyne effectively treated the brothers as 100 percent owners of those parcels even though that was not the case. Janice and Dennis could not have sold their interests in the land for anything close to the value used for partition purposes due to the fact that they did not entirely own the parcels. Nonetheless, they were required to compensate Craig and Donna as if they did realize the full value of their shares.
¶30 Even if Arlyne had ownership interests in all of the parcels, it still would benefit Janice and Dennis to discount all of them because it would lower the figure needed to equalize their properties with those of Craig and Donna.
¶31 Courts acting in equity have great discretion, and I am loathe to conclude that a judge abuses that discretion when fashioning an equitable remedy. Here, however, there *372are two apparent errors. First, the court appeared to believe that the divided interests in some of the parcels awarded to Dennis and Janice arose only after partition. That was not the case. The divided interests arose at partition when the land was awarded, just as it did for the parcel co-owned with the cousins. Second, the court used two different valuation systems by discounting the property co-owned with the cousins but not the property co-owned with the mother. The latter parcels were overvalued in relation to the former. Janice and Dennis were treated as 100 percent owners for valuation purposes of land they owned in common with their mother. Meanwhile, Craig and Donna were recognized, for valuation purposes, as owning less of the Stine property.
¶32 It simply is not equitable to discriminate in that manner. The same rules for discounting should apply to all of the parcels without regard to who the co-owners were. Because I believe the court erred in its reason for rejecting Janice’s request for partition and also erred in applying two different valuation approaches to similarly situated land, I respectfully dissent.
Review denied at 180 Wn.2d 1017 (2014).

 I agree with the trial court that the deaths of Dennis and Arlyne after the partition, and the passage of their shares to their heirs, were irrelevant to the discount decision. However, I think the trial court erroneously believed that the consequences of those deaths were the only reason Janice Kelsey was seeking a discount in the parcels she co-owned with Arlyne.