Akins v. Akins

Washington Supreme Court

Akins v. Akins

322 P.2d 872, 51 Wash. 2d 887, 1958 Wash. LEXIS 516

CourtWashington Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 13, 1958

Docket34305

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 322 P.2d 872 (Akins v. Akins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Washington Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Akins v. Akins, 322 P.2d 872, 51 Wash. 2d 887, 1958 Wash. LEXIS 516 (Wash. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

November 28,1951, Elizabeth C. Akins and Edward S. Akins (each approximately forty-four years of age) were married. No issue resulted from this marriage. Elizabeth Akins’ minor child by a previous marriage lived with them.

*888 July 16, 1956, Elizabeth Akins commenced this action for divorce, alleging personal indignities. Edward Akins answered, denying the allegations of the complaint, and cross-complained for a divorce upon the same grounds. Plaintiff’s reply denied the allegations of the cross-complaint. Upon the issues thus joined, the cause proceeded to trial.

From the decree granting a divorce to both parties and making a property division, Mrs. Akins has appealed.

Appellant contends that the court erred in finding that both parties were guilty of personal indignities and in granting the respondent a divorce. Respondent has not cross-appealed. The parties will, therefore, remain divorced regardless of whether or not the respondent should have been granted a divorce. If the court erred in this regard, it is not prejudicial. Smith v. Smith, 45 Wn. (2d) 672, 277 P. (2d) 339 (1954); Merkel v. Merkel, 39 Wn. (2d) 102, 234 P. (2d) 857 (1951).

It is next contended by appellant that there was an unjust and inequitable community property division. A wide latitude of discretion is allowed a trial court in the division of property as part of a divorce decree. Murphy v. Murphy, 44 Wn. (2d) 737, 270 P. (2d) 808 (1954); Toivonen v. Toivonen, 44 Wn. (2d) 473, 268 P. (2d) 456 (1954). The evidence in the instant case as to the contributions of the parties to the community property was conflicting. Our review of the record convinces us that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

Finally, appellant’s request that this court grant an allowance of attorneys’ fees for this appeal is denied, for the reason that appellant did not show a financial need. Blakey v. Blakey, ante p. 404, 318 P. (2d) 958 (1957); Koon v. Koon, 50 Wn. (2d) 577, 313 P. (2d) 369 (1957).

The decree is affirmed. Neither party will recover costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

November 28,1951, Elizabeth C. Akins and Edward S. Akins (each approximately forty-four years of age) were married. No issue resulted from this marriage. Elizabeth Akins’ minor child by a previous marriage lived with them.

*888 July 16, 1956, Elizabeth Akins commenced this action for divorce, alleging personal indignities. Edward Akins answered, denying the allegations of the complaint, and cross-complained for a divorce upon the same grounds. Plaintiff’s reply denied the allegations of the cross-complaint. Upon the issues thus joined, the cause proceeded to trial.

From the decree granting a divorce to both parties and making a property division, Mrs. Akins has appealed.

Appellant contends that the court erred in finding that both parties were guilty of personal indignities and in granting the respondent a divorce. Respondent has not cross-appealed. The parties will, therefore, remain divorced regardless of whether or not the respondent should have been granted a divorce. If the court erred in this regard, it is not prejudicial. Smith v. Smith, 45 Wn. (2d) 672, 277 P. (2d) 339 (1954); Merkel v. Merkel, 39 Wn. (2d) 102, 234 P. (2d) 857 (1951).

It is next contended by appellant that there was an unjust and inequitable community property division. A wide latitude of discretion is allowed a trial court in the division of property as part of a divorce decree. Murphy v. Murphy, 44 Wn. (2d) 737, 270 P. (2d) 808 (1954); Toivonen v. Toivonen, 44 Wn. (2d) 473, 268 P. (2d) 456 (1954). The evidence in the instant case as to the contributions of the parties to the community property was conflicting. Our review of the record convinces us that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

Finally, appellant’s request that this court grant an allowance of attorneys’ fees for this appeal is denied, for the reason that appellant did not show a financial need. Blakey v. Blakey, ante p. 404, 318 P. (2d) 958 (1957); Koon v. Koon, 50 Wn. (2d) 577, 313 P. (2d) 369 (1957).

The decree is affirmed. Neither party will recover costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

322 P.2d 872, 51 Wash. 2d 887, 1958 Wash. LEXIS 516, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/akins-v-akins-wash-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack