William Vogel, Appellant/cross-respondent V. Alice Vogel, Respondent/cross-appellant
83430-4
| Wash. Ct. App. | Mar 21, 2022Background
- William and Alice Vogel separated in March 2017; William petitioned for dissolution and the court entered a decree October 14, 2019.
- The court intended to equalize retirement and financial accounts, including federal Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) accounts, by giving each spouse half of the combined retirement assets.
- TSP accounts were valued at separation in 2017: William $339,623.40; Alice $23,975.00. The decree calculated a transfer of $152,025.21 from William’s TSP to Alice (plus Alice’s entire TSP).
- The decree’s express language used the 2017 valuations and did not state whether gains or losses accruing between the 2017 valuation and the decree/transfer would be included.
- After the decree, the parties disputed whether Alice’s award should include gains or losses that accrued; the trial court clarified that gains and losses follow each party’s share of the TSP. William appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court impermissibly modified the decree by requiring the TSP division to include gains/losses accruing after the 2017 valuation | William: Decree awarded Alice a fixed dollar amount based on 2017 valuation; including later gains/losses is a modification beyond the decree | Alice: Decree’s intent was equalization; absent language excluding gains/losses, they should be divided consistent with equalization | Court: Decree was ambiguous; trial court properly clarified intent to equalize retirement accounts and that gains/losses follow the parties’ shares—this is a clarification, not a modification |
| Whether appellate fees should be awarded to Alice | Alice: As prevailing party on appeal, she is entitled to attorney fees under RCW 26.09.140 and RAP 18.1 | William: Opposed; parties remain roughly equal after adjustment | Court: Denied fees—despite Alice prevailing, the parties’ financial positions remained roughly equal |
Key Cases Cited
- Chavez v. Chavez, 80 Wn. App. 432 (1996) (interpretation of a dissolution decree is a question of law)
- McDonald v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 119 Wn.2d 724 (1992) (questions of law reviewed de novo)
- In re Marriage of Gimlett, 95 Wn.2d 699 (1981) (ambiguous decree construction uses rules for statutes and contracts)
- Rivard v. Rivard, 75 Wn.2d 415 (1969) (distinguishes clarification of a decree from impermissible modification)
- Kern v. Kern, 28 Wn.2d 617 (1947) (trial court lacks authority to modify its decree absent conditions allowing reopening)
- In re Marriage of Thompson, 97 Wn. App. 873 (1999) (summarizes standards for clarification versus modification of dissolution decrees)