In the Matter of the Marriage of: Melissa Carol Fiechtner & Larry Lee Fiechtner

• Court: Court of Appeals of Washington
• Decided: March 31, 2026
• Docket: 40669-5
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

FILED MARCH 31, 2026 In the Office of the Clerk of Court WA State Court of Appeals, Division III

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE

In the Matter of the Marriage of ) No. 40669-5-III ) MELISSA CAROL FIECHTNER, ) ) Respondent, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) and ) ) LARRY LEE FIECHTNER, ) ) Appellant. )

HILL, J. — In a final divorce order between Melissa and Larry Fiechtner, the court

relied on Ms. Fiechtner’s appraisal when it valued the family home. Mr. Fiechtner

appeals, arguing the appraisal was inaccurate. Mr. Fiechtner also asserts that the trial

court violated several local rules and state statutes, as well as his federal and state

constitutional rights. We conclude the trial court’s valuation of the property is supported

by substantial evidence. Mr. Fiechtner fails to adequately support his remaining

arguments. We affirm. No. 40669-5-III In re Marriage of Fiechtner

BACKGROUND

After nearly 30 years of marriage, Carol Fiechtner filed a “Petition for Divorce”

against her husband, Larry Fiechtner. Ex. R-102. In September 2023, the Spokane

County Superior Court held a pro forma trial in which Mr. Fiechtner did not appear. The

court entered a divorce order but subsequently granted Mr. Fiechtner’s motion to vacate

section 7 pertaining to real property, section 11 pertaining to debt, and section 14

pertaining to fees and costs.

The parties, appearing pro se, agreed to an informal trial on the outstanding issues.

The primary issue was the value of the home. Both parties testified and submitted

exhibits. Ms. Fiechtner offered two appraisal reports, one from November 2022 and one

from April 2024. The 2022 report valued the home at $410,000, and the 2024 report

valued the home at $340,000. Mr. Fiechtner’s evidence included a spreadsheet depicting

the costs for what he believed to be necessary repairs, photos of potential damage to the

home, comparable listings for the home on Zillow, and estimates for various

improvements that needed to be made to the home prior to a sale.

At the conclusion of the trial, the court found the 2024 appraisal was the most

reliable evidence of the value of the home and noted Mr. Fiechtner did not present his

own appraisal. The court valued the home at $340,000 consistent with the 2024

2 No. 40669-5-III In re Marriage of Fiechtner

appraisal. The trial court awarded the home to Mr. Fiechtner, requiring him to remove

Ms. Fiechtner’s name from the housing documents, and pay her 65 percent of the home’s

equity within 60 days. If Mr. Fiechtner failed to meet these obligations, the property

would be placed on the market for sale. The court divided the other property and any

debt between the parties. The trial court required each party to pay their own fees and

costs.

Mr. Fiechtner appeals. He argues the trial court erred by relying on the 2024

appraisal and further alleges that the trial court violated several local rules and state

statutes, as well as his federal and state constitutional rights.

ANALYSIS

Home Valuation

A trial court’s division of property in dissolution proceedings will not be disturbed

unless the spouse challenging the decision demonstrates a manifest abuse of discretion.

In re Marriage of Muhammad, 153 Wn.2d 795, 803, 108 P.3d 779 (2005); In re Marriage

of Landry, 103 Wn.2d 807, 809, 699 P.2d 214 (1985). We review the trial court’s factual

findings supporting the property division for substantial evidence. Goodman v. Darden,

Doman & Stafford Assocs., 100 Wn.2d 476, 483, 670 P.2d 648 (1983). Property

valuation is a factual issue. In re Marriage of Porter, 3 Wn.3d 579, 588, 555 P.3d 379

3 No. 40669-5-III In re Marriage of Fiechtner

(2024).

Mr. Fiechtner contends that the trial court erred by relying on the 2024 appraisal

despite overwhelming errors and conflicting evidence, particularly as to the condition of

the home. We disagree. An appraisal completed by a professional constitutes substantial

evidence for the purpose of valuing an asset in dissolution proceedings. See In re

Marriage of Gillespie, 89 Wn. App. 390, 404, 948 P.2d 1338 (1997); In re Marriage of

Griswold, 112 Wn. App. 333, 351, 48 P.3d 1018 (2002). When parties offer conflicting

evidence of the valuation of an asset, the trial court may adopt the value asserted by

either party or any value in between. In re Marriage of Rockwell, 141 Wn. App. 235,

250, 170 P.3d 572 (2007). Here, the trial court adopted the value of the most recent

appraisal, which was conducted by a licensed appraiser.

While Mr. Fiechtner argues the appraisal contained errors and inadequately

accounted for various improvements needed and repairs, the court found that the

appraisal took these issues into account. The court also found Mr. Fiechtner’s evidence

unpersuasive, explaining that Mr. Fiechtner was not a per se expert in construction or real

estate. Contrary to Mr. Fiechtner’s assertions, the court examined all the evidence before

finding the licensed appraiser more reliable and helpful in valuing the home compared to

Mr. Fiechtner’s opinions.

4 No. 40669-5-III In re Marriage of Fiechtner

Mr. Fiechtner also assigns error to the trial court’s failure to set off the costs for

the improvements and repairs when valuing the home. However, the record shows the

trial court found the appraisal accounted for these needed improvements and repairs in

valuing the property. Mr. Fiechtner would not be penalized if he made the repairs before

selling the home as such repairs would increase the home’s value.

We therefore conclude that the trial court’s valuation of the home is supported by

substantial evidence.

Other Assignments of Error

Mr. Fiechtner also contends that the trial court violated local rules, state statutes,

the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and article I,

section 3 of the Washington State Constitution. This contention seems to stem primarily

from Mr. Fiechtner’s objection to the court holding the earlier September 2023 trial in his

absence.

We do not address these contentions for two reasons. First, the trial court vacated

several provisions from the order associated with the September 2023 trial. These

provisions relate to the distribution and valuation of property. Mr. Fiechtner had the

opportunity to present evidence and argument on these issues during the subsequent

informal trial, and it is these sections of the court’s order that he challenges on appeal.

5 No. 40669-5-III In re Marriage of Fiechtner

Second, an appellant must provide “argument in support of the issues presented for

review, together with citations to legal authority and references to relevant parts of the

record.” RAP 10.3(a)(6). Issues presented without meaningful analysis need not be

considered. State v. Rafay, 168 Wn. App. 734, 843, 285 P.3d 83 (2012); Norcon Builders

v. GMP Homes, 161 Wn. App. 474, 486, 254 P.3d 835 (2011).

While Mr. Fiechtner cites to the record, several court rules, statutes, and

constitutional provisions, he presents only conclusory statements and no citation to case

law in support of his arguments.

Attorney Fees and Costs 1

Ms. Fiechtner requests that we award her costs on appeal. RAP 18.1(b) requires

that the party requesting fees or expenses to devote a section of its opening brief to the

issue. The rule requires the moving party to include argument and citation to authority

demonstrating the grounds for an award of attorney fees and costs; the request must go

beyond merely a bald request for fees on appeal. Osborne v. Seymour, 164 Wn. App.

820, 866, 265 P.3d 917 (2011). This rule is mandatory. Id. Ms. Fiechtner’s request for

costs does not comply with these rules; therefore, we deny her request.

1 Ms. Fiechtner also appears to assign error to the trial court’s refusal to award attorney fees under RCW 26.09.140. She fails to include any argument on this issue in her brief; therefore, we decline to consider it. See RAP 10.3(a)(6).

6 No. 40669-5-III In re Marriage of Fiechtner

CONCLUSION

Mr. Fiechtner fails to demonstrate error by the trial court. Accordingly, we affirm.

A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the

Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to

RCW 2.06.040.

_________________________________ Hill, J.

WE CONCUR:

______________________________ __________________________________ Lawrence-Berrey, C.J. Cooney, J.