Guadalupe Galindo-tovar v. Christopher Tafoya
73736-8
| Wash. Ct. App. | Mar 13, 2017Background
- Guadalupe Galindo-Tovar and Christopher Tafoya married in 2009; separated in Feb 2014 after domestic-violence incidents. No children of the marriage.
- Tafoya previously pleaded guilty to fourth-degree assault involving Galindo-Tovar; a DV protection order and temporary maintenance ($1,000/mo) were entered before trial.
- At a three-day dissolution trial (June 2015) the court heard testimony and exhibits on property valuation, distribution, and maintenance; both parties proceeded pro se at trial.
- The trial court found Galindo-Tovar to be the economically disadvantaged spouse and a victim of domestic violence, credited her testimony, and found Tafoya controlled her personal belongings/immigration documents.
- The court valued Galindo-Tovar’s personal property at $15,000, found $10,000 in community property (awarding her 60% = $6,000), applied a $2,000 tax-debt offset to Tafoya, and entered a total judgment of $19,000 to Galindo-Tovar.
- The decree awarded ~ $9,500 in attorney fees to Galindo-Tovar, assigned ~ $1,500 medical liabilities to Tafoya, continued maintenance at $1,000/month for one year, and extended the DV protection order 18 months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial court failed to treat unanswered CR 36 requests as conclusive admissions of property value | Galindo-Tovar: unanswered requests established values entitling her to ~ $170,000 judgment | Trial court: properly relied on trial evidence and discretion to value property; requests did not establish values for all property | Court affirmed: CR 36 entries in record did not establish total values; court did not abuse discretion in determining value from trial evidence |
| Whether CR 36 could be used to preclude valuation evidence at trial | Galindo-Tovar: requests should control binding facts on value | Trial court/Tafoya: admissions on central disputed facts are improper scope of CR 36; court may evaluate and admit evidence | Court affirmed: requests as framed were improper for central disputed facts; trial court correctly considered evidence of value |
| Exclusion/refusal to consider evidence of domestic violence impact and future medical needs for maintenance | Galindo-Tovar: court excluded relevant DV/medical evidence, resulting in inadequate maintenance amount/duration | Trial court: acknowledged DV and medical needs; admitted relevant medical expense evidence; excluded witnesses whose testimony was irrelevant to future maintenance | Court affirmed: no refusal to consider material evidence; exclusion rulings reasonable; maintenance award within court’s broad discretion |
| Adequacy of maintenance award (amount/duration) | Galindo-Tovar: $1,000/month for one year is arbitrary and insufficient for future medical needs and to maintain premarital standard of living | Trial court: considered RCW factors, short marriage, parties’ ages, her larger property award, lack of proof of substantial future medical costs | Court affirmed: maintenance is discretionary and the award was just given the statutory factors and record |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Farmer, 172 Wn.2d 616 (discusses court’s power to distribute all property in dissolution)
- In re Marriage of Rockwell, 141 Wn. App. 235 (trial court has broad discretion in property valuation)
- In re Marriage of Crosetto, 82 Wn. App. 545 (division need not be mathematically precise; must be fair)
- In re Marriage of Muhammad, 153 Wn.2d 795 (defines manifest abuse of discretion)
- Hume v. American Disposal Co., 124 Wn.2d 656 (admission or refusal of evidence lies largely within trial court’s discretion)
- In re Marriage of Irwin, 64 Wn. App. 38 (purpose of maintenance is to assist until self-support)
- In re Marriage of Luckey, 73 Wn. App. 201 (maintenance discretionary; factors to consider)
- Saleemi v. Doctor’s Assocs., Inc., 176 Wn.2d 368 (errors in civil cases require prejudice to warrant relief)