In re the Marriage of Kile
186 Wash. App. 864
| Wash. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Gordon Kendall and Jeannie Kile separated after ~28 years of marriage; primary dispute concerned whether a farming operation (land, equipment, profits) was Jeannie’s separate property or community property.
- Jeannie’s father, Lester Kile, leased substantial acreage and equipment in 1988–1990 to "Jeannie Kile Kendall, a married person dealing in her sole and separate property" on standard crop‑share terms (father received 1/3, operator retained 2/3); Lester later forgave about $50,000 of equipment payments.
- Jeannie purchased two parcels (317 acres) in 1989 identified in the contracts/deeds as her separate property; Lester provided down payments and testified they were gifts to her.
- Farming revenues were deposited to a farm account in Jeannie’s name; payroll W‑2s listed Jeannie as employer and Gordon as employee, but Gordon was the hands‑on farm operator and community funds (including Gordon’s early retirement distributions and farm account receipts) were used to pay farm expenses and contract installments.
- Trial court ruled the leases, farm profits, equipment, and Flood parcels were Jeannie’s separate property (but recognized the $50,000 equipment forgiveness as a gift to her) and awarded Gordon ~80% of community assets; denied spousal maintenance and attorney fees to Gordon.
- The Court of Appeals found significant errors in characterization: although Lester intended leases to benefit Jeannie, the crop‑share leases and equipment payments were contracts supported by consideration and the community bore burdens/risks—so the community had a material interest; remanded property division but affirmed denial of maintenance and attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Kendall) | Defendant's Argument (Kile) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Characterization of farm leases and farming profits | Farming operation and profits were community property because Gordon ran the farm, community resources were used, and no agreement changed character | Leases were gifts to Jeannie (separate property); farm ran as her sole proprietorship with separate records and she paid Gordon wages | Court: Leases were contracts with fair consideration (crop share); Jeannie lacked separate capital at inception and community bore risks → profits and equipment payments were presumptively community; trial court erred treating farm profits/equipment as wholly separate. |
| Equipment lease and $50,000 forgiveness | Equipment and lease payments were community because paid from farm (community) funds; Gordon co‑signed some loans | Lester’s forgiveness of $50,000 was an inter vivos gift to Jeannie alone; title and contracting were in Jeannie’s name | Court: Equipment purchases were community (payments from farm/ community). But the $50,000 forgiven by Lester was a valid gift to Jeannie; she is entitled to reimbursement for her separate contribution. |
| Flood parcels (317 acres) purchased 1989 | Parcels became community because most subsequent payments were made from farm/community funds and operations were commingled | Initial down payments were gifts from Lester and deeds/quitclaims show purchase as Jeannie’s separate property | Court: At inception, substantial evidence supports that down payments were separate gifts and title was Jeannie’s separate property; however, community made payments thereafter entitling community to equitable reimbursement/equitable lien; commingling/operation may have eroded separateness for later proceeds. |
| Spousal maintenance and attorney fees | Gordon argued need for maintenance and fees to prepare for retirement and pay appeal costs | Trial court awarded Gordon ~80% of community assets and found no demonstrated maintenance need; both parties able to pay fees | Court: No abuse of discretion in denying maintenance or trial attorney fees; remand of property division allows trial court to reconsider maintenance; appellate fee affidavit untimely so no appellate fee award. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dean v. Lehman, 143 Wn.2d 12 (2001) (presumption that property acquired during marriage is community; burden to rebut by clear and convincing proof)
- Andrews v. Andrews, 116 Wash. 513 (1922) (property acquired by contract supported by consideration is not a gift to convert separate character)
- In re Estate of Borghi, 167 Wn.2d 480 (2009) (inception of title doctrine and requirement that separate property characterization be established by source of funds; writings generally required to transmute real property)
- In re Marriage of Sedlock, 69 Wn. App. 484 (1993) (right to reimbursement for separate contributions to property acquisition)