In re the Marriage of: Sareena Malhi and Andy K.R. Prasad
34499-1
| Wash. Ct. App. | Apr 13, 2017Background
- Divorce decree (May 18, 2015) awarded the marital home to Andy Prasad and deducted $30,000 for anticipated closing costs when valuing the home.
- The decree included a payment-back provision: if the home did not sell "imminently" (defined as within nine months of decree entry), Prasad must pay Sareena Malhi $15,000.
- Nine-month deadline was February 18, 2016. A purchase-and-sale agreement (PSA) was signed by buyers on February 11, 2016; contingencies were waived February 17, 2016.
- Closing (transfer of title) occurred March 15, 2016 — after the nine-month deadline.
- Malhi moved to enforce the decree and obtain the $15,000; the trial court ordered payment, concluding sale had not occurred "imminently." Prasad appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Malhi) | Defendant's Argument (Prasad) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a "sale" under the decree occurs when a PSA is executed/contingencies waived or when title transfers at closing | The decree requires a completed sale by the nine-month deadline; sale did not occur by then | A signed and uncontingent PSA constitutes an imminent sale; closing/transfer of title not required | The court held "sale" means transfer of ownership (closing); PSA alone is not a sale, so deadline missed and $15,000 owed |
| Standard of review for interpreting the decree provision | Decree language should be treated like a contract and reviewed de novo | Trial court interpreting its own decree could be reviewed for abuse of discretion | Court reviewed de novo because meaning was a question of law with undisputed facts and no extrinsic evidence |
| Whether Malhi is entitled to attorney fees on appeal under RCW 26.09.140 | Malhi seeks fees and submitted financial declaration | Prasad disputes Malhi's demonstrated financial need and notes her assets | Court exercised discretion to award Malhi reasonable appellate fees because Prasad has ability to pay and denying fees would defeat the decree's compensatory purpose |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Smith, 158 Wn. App. 248 (2010) (decree interpretation governed by parties' intent and contract construction rules)
- Snohomish County Pub. Transp. Benefit Area Corp. v. FirstGroup Am., Inc., 173 Wn.2d 829 (2012) (contract meaning may be decided as a matter of law when facts undisputed and no extrinsic evidence)
- Boeing Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 113 Wn.2d 869 (1990) (undefined contract terms are given ordinary meaning; courts may consult dictionaries)
- In re Marriage of Kim, 179 Wn. App. 232 (2014) (appellate courts may award reasonable attorney fees in dissolution actions and consider parties' finances and appeal merits)