In re the Marriage of: Michelle L. Cummings and David A. Cummings, 33355-8

Background

Michelle and David Cummings separated after a 34-year marriage; Michelle filed for dissolution. Both were 58, employed, and claimed health issues affecting future earnings.
The couple owned five properties: the Cheney family home and four rental properties (one commercial); agreed appraised values totaled roughly as set out in the record.
Michelle had minimal retirement separate property; David had significant separate funds (~$75,000) and multiple retirement accounts. David had been the primary manager of the rental portfolio.
Both parties sought the family home; Michelle emphasized proximity to grandchildren she regularly cared for and inability/unwillingness to manage rentals; David emphasized running his appraisal business from the home and desire to stay near grandchildren.
Trial court awarded the family home and the Dean (commercial) property to Michelle; the other rentals, David’s retirement accounts, and his separate property to David. Court did not order equalization, citing David’s separate assets. Court ordered each to pay their own fees but sanctioned David $1,000 in favor of Michelle’s attorney and (ambiguously) $1,000 in favor of his own counsel. David appealed, naming only Michelle as respondent.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (David)	Defendant's Argument (Michelle)	Held
Whether trial court properly considered RCW 26.09.080 factors when awarding family home and Dean property	Trial court failed to consider statutory factors and relied improperly on relative grandparenting relationships	Trial court considered statutory factors; grandchildren proximity and parties’ economic circumstances were relevant	Court affirmed: record (oral ruling + findings) shows the court considered RCW 26.09.080 factors; no abuse of discretion
Whether emotional attachment/proximity to grandchildren is an improper factor	Such personal/family reasons are improper or irrelevant to property division	Proximity and caregiving responsibilities are relevant to awarding the family home under RCW 26.09.080(4)	Court held proximity and caregiving are relevant considerations and properly weighed among other statutory factors
Whether the award was inequitable given relative property values and David’s management role	Award of home and Dean property to Michelle was unjust given David’s role with rentals and his separate assets	Court tailored distribution considering community vs. separate property, parties’ incomes, retirement assets, and manageability of the Dean property by Michelle	Court found the property split was within trial court’s discretion and not a manifest abuse of discretion
Validity of $1,000 sanction ordered in favor of David’s trial counsel	Sanction in favor of counsel is erroneous and reviewable on appeal	Written findings indicate sanction structure and any dispute over payment to David’s own counsel is a dispute with that lawyer, not with Michelle	Court refused to review that portion: appellant challenged sanction against wrong party; written findings show sanction did not require David to pay his own lawyer beyond fee agreement

Key Cases Cited

Farmer v. Farmer, 172 Wn.2d 616, 259 P.3d 256 (2011) (statutory objective to divide marital property justly and equitably)
In re Marriage of Rockwell, 141 Wn. App. 235, 170 P.3d 572 (2007) (appellate review for abuse of discretion in property distribution)
In re Marriage of Tower, 55 Wn. App. 697, 780 P.2d 863 (1989) (same)
In re Marriage of Brewer, 137 Wn.2d 756, 976 P.2d 102 (1999) (trial court best positioned to evaluate equitable division)
In re Marriage of Steadman, 63 Wn. App. 523, 821 P.2d 59 (1991) (no formal findings required so long as record shows consideration of relevant factors)
In re Marriage of Rink, 18 Wn. App. 549, 571 P.2d 210 (1977) (oral decision may be used to interpret findings)
In re Marriage of Mattson, 95 Wn. App. 592, 976 P.2d 157 (1999) (intransigence can justify fee awards on appeal)
In re Marriage of Bobbitt, 135 Wn. App. 8, 144 P.3d 306 (2006) (definition of intransigence in dissolution context)
In re Marriage of Foley, 84 Wn. App. 839, 930 P.2d 929 (1997) (standard for frivolous appeals)
In re Marriage of Kile & Kendall, 186 Wn. App. 864, 347 P.3d 894 (2015) (consideration of parties’ financial resources for appellate fee awards)