Carole Hoffman Laroche v. Alan Lowell Hoffman
74207-8
Wash. Ct. App. UOct 3, 2016Background
- Carole LaRoche (formerly Carole Hoffman) and Alan Hoffman married in 2000 after signing a prenuptial agreement that kept substantial family trusts and other assets as each spouse's separate property.
- The parties separated in 2009; after trial the court entered a 2010 decree dividing property and awarding Hoffman, as his separate property, a Smith Barney account titled to the Hoffman Family Trust (the "5177 Trust"), with a 4/30/2010 balance near $7.88 million.
- LaRoche appealed the dissolution and lost; the prenuptial agreement and property division were affirmed on appeal.
- In 2015 LaRoche moved under CR 60 to vacate the dissolution decree, alleging Hoffman (and his counsel/expert witnesses) committed fraud and misrepresented the status/value of the 5177 Trust and submitted false financial declarations and incomplete exhibits.
- The trial court denied the CR 60 motion, finding no fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct that procured the decree; the court had awarded the 5177 Trust based on the prenuptial agreement rather than any trial misrepresentation. LaRoche appealed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (LaRoche) | Defendant's Argument (Hoffman) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CR 60(b)(4) vacatur is warranted for fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct | Hoffman misrepresented the 5177 Trust as for his children and concealed that he had appointed it to his estate, preventing fair property division | Court awarded the trust under the prenup, not because of Hoffman's representations; no fraud procured the judgment | Denied — LaRoche failed to prove fraud by clear and convincing evidence; decree not procured by fraud |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by not holding an evidentiary hearing under CR 60(e)(2) | Affidavits/declarations raise factual disputes (fraud, false declarations, omitted exhibits) that require testimonial resolution | Court discretion governs whether to hear oral testimony; LaRoche did not present sufficient facts to require an evidentiary hearing | Denied — no abuse of discretion; no sufficient factual showing to compel hearing |
| Whether the 5177 Trust should have been treated as part of community property/tenants in common | Because Hoffman allegedly misrepresented ownership, the court should have considered the trust in property division or treated it as commingled/community | The prenuptial agreement established the trust as Hoffman's separate property and the record does not show it was included/excluded due to fraud | Denied — property award rested on the prenup, not on misrepresentation; no change to characterization |
| Whether appellate sanctions under RAP 18.9 are appropriate for a frivolous appeal | N/A (LaRoche seeks vacatur) | Hoffman asks for damages/fees to deter frivolous appeals and recover costs from defending this appeal | Denied — appeal arguably weak but sanction request sought trial costs not appellate costs and thus fell outside RAP 18.9 |
Key Cases Cited
- Martin v. Pickering, 85 Wn.2d 241 (trial court discretion on CR 60 motions)
- In re Marriage of Knutson, 114 Wn. App. 866 (standard of review for CR 60 motions)
- In re Marriage of Littlefield, 133 Wn.2d 39 (manifest abuse of discretion standard)
- Lindgren v. Lindgren, 58 Wn. App. 588 (burden to prove fraud under CR 60(b)(4))
- Peoples State Bank v. Hickey, 55 Wn. App. 367 (CR 60 focus on judgments unfairly obtained)
- In re Marriage of Irwin, 64 Wn. App. 38 (discretion on receiving oral testimony under CR 60)
- In re Marriage of Maddix, 41 Wn. App. 248 (when conflicting affidavits may require testimony before vacatur)
- In re Marriage of Foley, 84 Wn. App. 839 (definition and sanction standard for frivolous appeals under RAP 18.9)