In re the Marriage of: Tina Louise Meyette and Dan Michael Meyette
34314-6
| Wash. Ct. App. | Apr 25, 2017Background
- Tina and Dan Meyette separated after ~30 years of marriage; dissolution trial in Nov. 2015 concerned equitable property division and Tina's request for maintenance.
- Local rule required pretrial submission of property worksheets; both parties filed worksheets the day before trial that listed similar items with different valuations.
- Tina had hearing impairment and later received a listening device during trial; she did not request a court-appointed interpreter.
- Tina testified about several items not listed on her worksheet; the court generally allowed some testimony but excluded or declined to value many unlisted items for lack of proof.
- The trial court distributed property, denied maintenance, and declined to award Tina credit for most unlisted items because she failed to provide admissible valuation evidence.
- Tina appealed, arguing (1) improper exclusion of evidence of unlisted property, (2) denial of statutory/constitutional accommodation, and (3) inconsistent treatment regarding her $5,000 IRA; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Meyette) | Defendant's Argument (Meyette) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility/value of property not listed on pretrial worksheet | Trial court improperly excluded or refused to value multiple unlisted items (tractor sale proceeds, firewood, guardrail, guns, ammunition, corral panels, etc.) | Trial court properly limited or excluded testimony where items were unlisted and lacked documentary or valuation proof; some testimony was allowed but value not established | Court affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; it allowed some testimony but declined to assign value where evidence was insufficient or assets were treated as community property already used by the parties |
| Treatment of Tina’s $5,000 IRA and alleged inconsistent treatment | Court allowed husband to question about IRA but then excluded other unlisted property — claimed inconsistency | Tina did not object to IRA questioning; court consistently allowed unlisted items when existence and value were shown | Court held no inconsistency; IRA was acknowledged with value and therefore treated equally |
| Court’s obligation to provide a qualified interpreter/hearing accommodation under RCW 2.42.120(1) and due process | Court violated statute and due process by not appointing an interpreter (Tina is hearing impaired) | Tina never requested an interpreter at trial; the court later provided a listening device and she did not request more; appellate review of statutory claim is waived absent trial objection | Court declined statutory review (issue not raised below) and declined to address inadequately briefed constitutional claim |
| Attorney fees on appeal under RCW 4.84.185 | N/A (Tina sought relief; husband sought fees) | Husband sought fees on appeal as frivolous litigation | Court refused to award RCW 4.84.185 fees on appeal (statute does not apply to appeals) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Zier, 136 Wn. App. 40 (court gives trial court broad discretion in property awards)
- Kappelman v. Lutz, 167 Wn.2d 1 (trial court abuses discretion when based on untenable grounds; standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Hanna v. Margitan, 193 Wn. App. 596 (statutory fee provision RCW 4.84.185 does not apply to appeals)
- Bill of Rights Legal Found. v. Evergreen State Coll., 44 Wn. App. 690 (reasons why appellate courts do not enter trial-style findings or apply certain trial statutes on appeal)