Fl ED C' 3. t OF APPEALS. DIVISION f1 2014 JUN 10 AM 8: L 1
WASt'11NGTON
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTO k
In the Matter of the Marriage of:
ALICE AWWAD, DIVISION II
No. 44449 -6 -II N, Respondent,
and
SAMIR GEORGE AWWAD, UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant.
WORSWICK, P. J. — This appeal follows the trial court' s entry of final orders ending a
marriage between Samir and Alice Awwad. Samir appeals the dissolution decree and child
support order. Samir argues ( 1) substantial evidence does not support the trial court' s findings
and ( 2) the trial court abused its discretion when distributing the community property and
imputing Samir' s income. Because substantial evidence supports the trial court' s findings and
the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.
FACTS
Samir and Alice Awwad married in Lebanon in 1983 and separated in Washington State.
Samir and Alice had four children, one of whom was still a minor at the time of trial.' Beyond
this, the parties dispute many of the facts.
We address the parties and their children by their first names for clarity, intending no disrespect. No. 44449 -6 -II
A. Date ofSeparation
Samir and Alice moved to the United States in 1986. Samir and Alice lived together until
2006, when Samir moved to Florida and Alice moved to Washington State. Samir and Alice
traveled together to Mt. Hood to celebrate their 2007 wedding anniversary, and Hawaii to
celebrate their 2008 wedding anniversary. Samir and Alice filed their taxes jointly through 2009.
In 2009, after Samir moved to Florida, Alice made plans to move there and live with
Samir. Samir changed his mind, and moved to Pennsylvania in 2010. Alice and Samir made
plans for Alice to move to Pennsylvania later in 2010.
Before Alice moved to Pennsylvania, Samir told Alice' s parents that he planned to
divorce her. Alice filed for divorce on November 22, 2010, after numerous unsuccessful
attempts to talk with Samir. Alice testified that despite filing for divorce, she attempted to
preserve the marriage through 2011.
The trial court determined that the marriage was intact until December 1, 2010 stating:
Samir] and [ Alice] separated on December 1, 2010. This separation date is based upon [ Alice' s] filing of the Petition for Dissolution on November 22, 2010. Although [ Samir] claimed that the parties' date of separation was in 2006, when the parties began living in separate households, he failed to establish that the parties had a mutual intent to abandon the marriage before December 1, 2010, as required for the Court to find that a de facto separation existed and to characterize property acquired from 2006 to 2010 as separate property of the parties.
Clerk' s Papers ( CP) at 374 ( emphasis omitted).
B. Credit Card Debt from the Purchase ofthe Ring
In October of 2010, Alice charged approximately $ 15, 000 to Samir and Alice' s joint
credit card for a ring and earring set ( collectively, the ring). Alice testified that Samir consented
to the purchase, which was a gift for Alice' s mother' s 50th wedding anniversary. By September
2 No. 44449 -6 -II
of 2012, Samir had paid $ 10, 568. 24 on this credit card debt ( the ring debt), and $ 9, 573. 19 was
still owed on the debt.
The trial court found Samir responsible for the remaining ring debt, stating:
Before separation, [ Alice] incurred a debt of approximately $ 15, 000 on the parties' Bank of America credit card to purchase a ring as a gift for her mother' s 50th anniversary. [ Samir] has chosen to pay off that debt in monthly installments, even when he was .earning substantial income and had the ability to pay off the debt in full. The remaining balance on this credit card shall be [ Samir' s]
responsibility.
CP at 384 -85.
C. Employment and Income
1. Samir' s Employment
Samir had a master' s degree in engineering and was certified as a professional engineer
in 14 states. Samir had worked as an engineer and a professor earning over $ 100, 000 per year
from 2010 until July of 2012, when he was laid off.
Samir had chronic health problems. He remained unemployed from July of 2012 until
trial, during which time unemployment provided his sole income source. Samir testified that he
diligently searched for employment as an engineer, sending out over 200 resumes. But Samir
made no attempts to find employment outside of the engineering field, such as teaching or
working in a related field.
2. Alice' s Employment
Alice was a stay -at -home mother from 1986 until 2005. In 2005, Alice graduated from
dental hygiene school and began working part time, but never worked full time. Alice testified,
with the support of a job search log, that despite diligent efforts to find full -ime employment t
from September of 2011 until trial, she could find only part- time employment. No. 44449 -6 -II
3. Trial Court' s Ruling
The trial court found that Samir was voluntarily unemployed. The trial court explained
this finding in its oral ruling:
Samir is] capable of working. He was working very recently. The job opportunities —I think for an engineer —he said he' s been teaching. He can be a consultant. There' s a lot of things out there for engineers. The construction
business is picking up.
Verbatim Report of Proceedings ( VRP) at 499.
Although Samir had earned over $ 100, 000 per year from 2010 until July of 2012, the trial
court imputed Samir' s income at $ 60, 000 per year, recognizing that Samir may have to accept
lower paying work.
The trial court determined Alice' s income based on her historical part-time earnings,
2 rather than imputing time income. full - After determining the incomes of Samir and Alice, the
trial court ordered Samir to pay maintenance for four years and child support for approximately
two years.
D. Loans from Alice' s Family
Alice borrowed money from her family during the marriage. Alice testified to four loans
pertinent to this appeal. Alice borrowed ( 1) $ 62, 218 from her brother; ( 2) $ 10, 000 from the
parties' son George; ( 3) $ 7, 800 from her sister; and ( 4) $ 4, 650 from her father.
The trial court admitted promissory notes to support the existence of Alice' s brother' s
loans, copies of checks to support the existence of George' s loans, copies of cancelled checks to
establish the existence of Alice' s sister' s loans, and wire transfer receipts to support the existence
2 The trial court did not make an affirmative finding that Alice was voluntarily underemployed.
4 No. 44449 -6 -II
of Alice' s father' s loans. The trial court listed these four loans, and found " based on the
evidence presented that the amount of community liability that should be assessed for loans from
Alice' s] family should be $ 50, 000." CP at 385.
E. Sale ofAlice' s Brother 's Property in Vancouver
Alice' s brother purchased a vacant property in Vancouver, Washington. Alice and her
brother planned that after her brother built a house on the property, Alice and her children would
move into it. In keeping with this plan, Alice was listed on some documents as the property' s
purchaser. But the trial court admitted a cancelled check showing that Alice' s brother' s
company made the down payment on the property.
While Alice' s brother was building the house, Alice decided against moving onto the
property because she wanted to move to a better school district. Alice' s brother completed the
house on the property, sold the property, and transferred all of the equity back into his company.
The trial court found that Alice received no profits from the property' s sale:
Samir] claimed that [ Alice] ... from [ the property' s] received net profits ...
sale. [ Alice] presented evidence that her brother provided the funds to purchase
this property on her behalf. [ Alice] decided that she did not want the property and chose to live in Camas to provide a better school district for the children. When the property] sold, all of the net profits were paid to her brother, not to [ Alice], as
neither [ Alice] nor [ Samir] provided any funds for the purchase of [the property].
CPat375.
F. Trial Court 's Overall Distribution ofCommunity Property
The trial court distributed the community assets and liabilities such that Samir received a
net value of $368, 259. 81 in community property, and Alice received a net value of $404, 045. 70.
The trial court then transferred an additional $25, 000 of Samir' s pension over to Alice, to
account for part of his back child support. This resulted in Samir receiving a net value of
5 No. 44449 -6 -II
343, 259. 81, and Alice receiving a net value of $429,045. 70. As part of this overall distribution,
the trial court awarded Alice four of Samir' s pensions.
The trial court' s distribution of community property resulted in Alice' s receiving more
than 50 percent of the marital estate. Because $25, 000 of Alice' s community property award
was designed to account for a portion of Samir' s back child support, the trial court reduced
Samir' s back child support obligation by $25, 000. In addition, the trial court adjusted Samir' s
maintenance payment downward and denied Alice' s request for additional attorney fees.
G. Value of the Vehicles
Samir and Alice owned many vehicles, three of which are at issue here. First, Samir and
Alice owned a Ford Expedition. In late December of 2011, Samir gave the Ford to Samir and
Alice' s son Joey, and Joey traded the Ford in for a different vehicle. Second, Samir and Alice
both testified to owning a decades old Pontiac Trans Am. Third, Samir and Alice owned a
Mercury Sable. Alice testified that the Mercury was worth $5, 000, based on its Kelley Blue Book value.
Thetrial court found that the Ford, the Pontiac; and the Mercury had a - ombined total c
value of $2, 000. The trial court awarded all three vehicles to Samir. Samir appeals.
ANALYSIS
We begin our analysis by observing the high burden Samir bears in this case. As our
Supreme Court has explained:
T] rial court decisions in a dissolution action will seldom be changed upon appeal. Such decisions are difficult at best. Appellate courts should not encourage appeals by tinkering with them. The emotional and financial interests affected by such decisions are best served by finality. The spouse who challenges
6 No. 44449 -6 -II
such decisions bears the heavy burden of showing a manifest abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court.
In re Marriage ofLandry, 103 Wn.2d 807, 809, 699 P. 2d 214 ( 1985).
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
Samir argues that insufficient evidence supports several of the trial court' s findings of
fact. We review the trial court' s findings to determine whether substantial evidence supports
them. In re Marriage of Greene, 97 Wn. App. 708, 714, 986 P. 2d 144 ( 1999). " Substantial
evidence exists if the record contains evidence of sufficient quantity to persuade a fair - minded,
rational person of the truth of the declared premise." Bering v. Share, 106 Wn.2d 212, 220, 721
P. 2d 918 ( 1986). We interpret the trial court' s findings to support the judgment whenever
possible. Smith v. Shannon, 100 Wn. 2d 26, 35, 666 P. 2d 351 ( 1983). Failure to make a finding
of fact where one is required is presumed equivalent to a finding against the party with the
burden of proof, here Samir. In re Welfare ofA. B., 168 Wn.2d 908, 927, 232 P. 3d 1104 ( 2010).
Unchallenged findings are verities on appeal. In re Marriage ofKim, 179 Wn. App. 232, 246,
317 P. 3d 555, review denied, 180 Wn.2d 1012 ( 2014).
In determining whether substantial evidence exists to support a trial court' s finding of
fact, we review the record in the light most favorable to the party in whose favor the findings
were entered, here Alice. In re Marriage ofGillespie, 89 Wn. App. 390, 404, 948 P. 2d 1338
1997). We defer to the trial court on issues of conflicting testimony and witness credibility. In
re Marriage of Burrill, 113 Wn. App. 863, 868, 56 P. 3d 993 ( 2002); Greene, 97 Wn. App. at
714. We will not disturb findings that substantial evidence supports even if conflicting evidence
exists. In re Marriage ofLutz, 74 Wn. App. 356, 370, 873 P. 2d 566 ( 1994).
7 No. 44449 -6 -II
A. Finding that the Marital Community Was Intact until December 1, 2010
Samir argues that substantial evidence does not support the trial court' s finding that the
marital community was intact until December 1, 2010, the date Alice filed for divorce. We
disagree.
Normally, assets acquired during a marriage are presumed to be community property. In
re Marriage of Short, 125 Wn.2d 865, 870, 890 P. 2d 12 ( 1995). But "[ w] hen spouses or
domestic partners are living separate and apart, their respective earnings and accumulations shall
be the separate property of each." RCW 26. 16. 140.
Whether spouses are living " separate and apart" turns on the particular facts of each case.
In re Marriage of Wright, Wn. App. , 319 P. 3d 45, 51 ( 2013). The person asserting that
the spouses are living " separate and apart" must establish that fact by a preponderance of the
evidence. See Seizer v. Sessions, 132 Wn.2d 642, 659, 940 P. 2d 261 ( 1997); Boisen v. Burgess,
87 Wn. App. 912, 919, 943 P. 2d 682 ( 1997).
Mere physical separation does not suffice. Seizer, 132 Wn.2d at 657. Instead, the marital
community must no longer exist. Seizer, 132 Wn.2d at 657. The - marital community no longer
exists only when the evidence shows that both spouses engaged in conduct demonstrating that
they no longer had the will to continue the marriage. Seizer, 132 Wn.2d at 658. Here, the trial court found that Samir and Alice' s marriage was intact until December 1,
2010, based on the date Alice filed for divorce, and found that Samir failed to prove that both
spouses " had a mutual intent to abandon the marriage before December 1, 2010." CP at 374.
We interpret this finding to mean that Samir failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence
that he and Alice lived separate and apart before Alice filed for divorce in 2010 because the
8 No. 44449 -6 -II
evidence did not demonstrate that both spouses engaged in conduct demonstrating that they no
longer had the will to continue the marriage before that time.
Substantial evidence supports this finding. First, Samir and Alice travelled together to
celebrate their wedding anniversaries in 2007 and 2008. Second, Samir and Alice planned to
move in together in 2009 and 2010. Third, Samir and Alice filed their taxes jointly through
2009. Fourth, Alice testified that she attempted to preserve the marriage through 2011. Finally,
Samir did not file for divorce, and Alice filed for divorce on November 22, 2010. These facts
provide substantial evidence to support the trial court' s finding that Samir failed to prove with a
preponderance of the evidence that Samir and Alice lived " separate and apart" before Alice filed
for divorce in 2010 because the evidence did not demonstrate that both spouses engaged in
conduct demonstrating that they no longer had the will to continue the marriage before that time.
Thus, the trial court did not err in determining that the marital community was intact until
December 1, 2010.
B. Failure To Find that the Ring was Alice' s Asset
Samir argues that the trial court erred by failing to find that the ring was Alice' s asset. -
We disagree.
The trial court did not make an affirmative finding that the ring was Alice' s asset, which
we presume to be a finding that the ring was not Alice' s asset. See A. B., 168 Wn.2d at 927.
Substantial evidence supports this finding. Alice testified that she gave the ring to her mother for
9 No. 44449 -6 -II
her 50th wedding anniversary. Alice testified that Samir consented to this gift. Substantial 3 evidence supports the trial court' s finding that the ring was not Alice' s asset.
C. Findings on Voluntary Unemployment and Underemployment
Samir argues that the trial court erred by determining that he was voluntarily unemployed
and that Alice was not voluntarily underemployed. We disagree.
RCW 26. 19. 071( 6) mandates that the trial court impute income when it finds that a
spouse is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed:
Imputation of income. The court shall impute income to a parent when the parent is voluntarily unemployed or voluntarily underemployed. The court shall determine whether the parent is voluntarily underemployed or voluntarily unemployed based upon that parent' s work history, education, health, and age, or any other relevant factors.
Voluntary unemployment and voluntary underemployment is " brought about by one' s own free choice, and is intentional." In re Marriage ofBrockopp, 78 Wn. App. 441, 446 n.5, 898 P. 2d
849 ( 1995).
1. Finding that Samir 's Unemployment Was Voluntary
Samir argues that substantial evidence does not support the trial court' s finding that his
unemployment was voluntary. We disagree.
Samir had a master' s degree in engineering, certification as a professional engineer in 14
states, and a strong work history at a high salary. Samir had worked as a professor. Samir had
chronic health problems, but had worked with these health problems until July of 2012. Samir
3 Samir appears to argue that the trial court should have considered unrelated jewelry and dental equipment allegedly in Alice' s possession when deciding whether the ring was Alice' s asset. But the unrelated jewelry and dental equipment have no bearing on whether the ring was Alice' s asset.
10 No. 44449 -6 -II
had searched for employment in the field of engineering, but had not attempted to apply for any
jobs outside of that field, such as teaching or working in another field of construction.
Substantial evidence supports the trial court' s finding that Samir' s unemployment was voluntary.
2. Failure To Find that Alice' s Part - Time Underemployment Was Voluntary
Samir argues that the trial court erred by failing to find that Alice' s part-time
underemployment was voluntary. We disagree.
The trial court did not make a finding that Alice' s part-time underemployment was
voluntary; we presume this to be a finding that Alice' s underemployment was not voluntary. See A. B., 168 Wn.2d at 927. Substantial evidence supports this finding. Alice had a very large gap
in work history because she was a stay -at -home mother from 1986 until 2005. Alice testified,
with support of her job search log, that despite diligent efforts to find full -ime employment from t
September of 2011 until trial, she could find only part- time employment. Substantial evidence
supports the trial court' s finding that Alice' s underemployment was not voluntary.
D. Finding that Alice Borrowed $50,000from her Family
Samir argues that substantial evidence does not support the trial court' s finding that A ice at
borrowed $ 50, 000 from her family during the marriage. We disagree.
The trial court found that Alice borrowed $ 50, 000 from her family. This was based on
four loans to Alice: $62, 218 from her brother, $ 10, 000 from George, $ 7, 800 from Alice' s sister,
and $ 4, 650 from Alice' s father.
Substantial evidence supports the trial court' s finding that Alice borrowed $ 50, 000 during
the marriage. Promissory notes in the record before us provide substantial evidence of the
brother' s loans. George' s testimony, along with copies of cancelled checks, provides substantial
11 No. 44449 -6 -II
evidence of George' s loans. Alice' s testimony, along with copies of cancelled checks, provide
substantial evidence of her sister' s loans. Alice' s testimony and wire transfer receipts provide
substantial evidence of her father' s loans. Thus, substantial evidence supports the trial court' s
finding that Alice borrowed $50, 000 from her family during the marriage.
E. Finding that Alice Received No Equity from the Vancouver Property' s Sale
Samir argues that substantial evidence does not support the trial court' s finding that Alice
received no equity from the Vancouver property' s sale. We disagree.
Alice testified that her brother' s company purchased the property in Alice' s name
because Alice planned to live there. In addition, the trial court admitted a cancelled check
showing that Alice' s brother' s company made the down payment on the property. Alice testified
that she decided to move to a location with a better school district rather than move into the
house that Alice' s brother was building on the property. Alice' s brother then built a house on the
property, sold the property, and transferred the equity to his company. Substantial evidence
supports the trial court' s finding that Alice received no equity from the property' s sale.
F. Finding that the Ford, Pontiac, and Mercury Had a Collective Total Value of $ 000 2,
Samir argues that the Ford and Pontiac are worthless, and that thus, substantial evidence
does not ` upport the trial court' s finding that the Ford, Pontiac, and Mercury had a combined s
total value of $ 000. We disagree. 2,
The trial court assigned the three vehicles a combined total value of $ 000. Alice 2,
testified that the Mercury alone was worth $5, 000, based on its Blue Book value. Alice' s
testimony regarding the Mercury' s value is substantial evidence that the three vehicles had a
combined total value of at least $ 2, 000, regardless of the value of the Ford and Pontiac.
12 No. 44449 -6 -II
II. DISCRETIONARY DECISIONS
Samir argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it divided community property
and debt and when it imputed his income. We disagree.
There is a heavy presumption in favor of upholding the trial court' s judgment in a
dissolution action. Landry, 103 Wn.2d at 809. We will not overturn a trial court' s decisions in a
dissolution action unless the party challenging the decision can show that the trial court abused
its discretion. In re Marriage ofBowen, 168 Wn. App. 581, 586, 279 P. 3d 885, review denied,
176 Wn.2d 1009 ( 2012). A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is manifestly
unreasonable, based on untenable grounds, or made for untenable reasons. Bowen, 168 Wn.
App. at 586.
A. Dividing the Community Property
Samir argues that the trial court abused its discretion by distributing four of Samir' s
pensions to Alice. We disagree.
The trial court has broad discretion in distributing property, overturned only for abuse of
discretion. See In re Marriage of 103 Wn.2d 807, 809 -10, 699 P. 2d214 ( 1985). The
trial court is in the best position to assess the spouses' assets and liabilities to determine what is
fair, just and equitable under all the circumstances." In re Marriage ofBrewer, 137 Wn.2d 756,
769, 976 P. 2d 102 ( 1999) ( quoting In re Marriage ofHadley, 88 Wn.2d 649, 656, 565 P. 2d 790
1977)).
Here, the trial court distributed the community property (assets and liabilities) such that
Samir received a net value of $343, 259. 81, and Alice received a net value of $429, 045. 70.
Property awarded to Alice in the amount of $25, 000. 00 was to account for a portion of Samir' s
13 No. 44449 -6 -II
back child support, and the trial court subtracted $ 25, 000. 00 from Samir' s back child support
accordingly. See generally In re Marriage ofHammack, 114 Wn. App. 805, 809, 60 P. 3d 663
2003). The trial court also adjusted Samir' s maintenance payment downward and denied
Alice' s request for additional attorney fees. Although the trial court awarded four of Samir' s
pensions to Alice, it took these four pensions into consideration when calculating its overall
distribution of community property. The trial court' s distribution of property was not an abuse
of its broad discretion to determine what was fair, just, and equitable under all the
4 circumstances.
B. Allocating the Ring Debt to Samir
Samir argues that the trial court abused its discretion by allocating the ring debt to him.
The marital community' s members may not waste co -owned assets, but must honor their
obligation to manage marital assets to the benefit of the community. See generally RCW
26. 16. 030. A trial court " has discretion to consider whose ` negatively productive conduct'
depleted the couples' assets and to apportion a higher debt load or fewer assets to the wasteful
marital partner." In re Marriage of Williams, 84 Wn. App. 263, 270, 927 P. 2d 679 ( 1996)
quoting In re Marriage of Clark, 13 Wn. App. 805, 809, 538 P. 2d 145 ( 1975)).
4 For the first time in his reply brief, Samir argues that the trial court erred by ( 1) characterizing a Falcon retirement account as community property because this account was started after December 1, 2010, and ( 2) characterizing a Wachovia account as community property because the account was depleted before December 1, 2010. We do not address arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief. RAP 10. 3( c); Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. Bosley, 118 Wn.2d 801, 809, 828 P. 2d 549 ( 1992).
14 No. 44449 -6 -II
While little precedent exists determining exactly what constitutes waste in Washington,
we have recognized that the failure to pay taxes constitutes marital waste. In re Marriage of
Steadman, 63 Wn. App. 523, 528, 821 P. 2d 59 ( 1991). The issue here is whether Samir' s failure
to pay community debts, despite ample resources to do so, constituted waste.
Here, the trial court' s unchallenged finding of fact states that Samir made low monthly
payments on the ring debt during the time that he had substantial income. This is essentially a
finding that Samir committed waste. Because of Samir' s low monthly payments, after paying
10, 568. 24 on the ring debt, he still owed $9, 573. 19 in September of 2012. Thus, the slow
payment of the ring debt incurred over $5, 000 in credit card interest.
Samir does not challenge the trial court' s finding that he paid the ring debt in low
monthly payments despite a substantial income, and thus, the finding is a verity on appeal. Kim,
179 Wn. App. at 246. This finding supports the conclusion that Samir' s actions depleted
community assets because Samir' s slow payment of the ring debt allowed for the accumulation
of interest. The trial court' s unchallenged finding supports its determination that Samir
committed waste. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in considering this waste when
deciding to apportion a higher debt load to Samir by allocating the remaining ring debt to him.
C. Imputing Samir' s Income at $60, 000 Per Year
Samir argues that the trial court abused its discretion by imputing his income at $ 60, 000
per year, and calculating his child support based on that imputed income. We disagree.
We review imputation of income due to voluntary unemployment for abuse of discretion.
In re Marriage of Wright, 78 Wn. App. 230, 234, 896 P. 2d 735 ( 1995); see Bowen, 168 Wn.
15 No. 44449 -6 -II
App. at 586. Under RCW 26. 19. 071( 6), the trial court is obligated to impute income when it
finds that a spouse is voluntarily unemployed:
Imputation of income. The court shall impute income to a parent when the parent is voluntarily unemployed or voluntarily underemployed. . . . In the absence of records of a parent' s actual earnings, the court shall impute a parent' s income in the following order of priority:
a) Full - time earnings at the current rate of pay;
b)Full - time earnings at the historical rate of pay based on reliable information, such as employment security department data.
Here, after finding that Samir' s unemployment was voluntary, RCW 26. 19. 071( 6)
mandated that the trial court impute Samir' s income. The trial court could not base its
imputation on Samir' s current rate of pay because Samir was unemployed. Thus, the trial court
imputed Samir' s income based on his historical rate of pay under RCW 26. 19. 071( 6)( b).
Samir earned over $ 100, 000 per year from 2010 until July of 2012. The trial court
imputed Samir' s income at $ 60, 000 per year, recognizing that he may have to accept lower
paying work. The trial court' s decision was not manifestly unreasonable, and thus, not an abuse
of discretion. This is because the trial court imputed Samir' s income based on historical
earnings, but accounted for the possibility that Samir would have to accept lower paying work.5
5 Samir also appears to assert that the trial court should have modified his back child support obligations. Because Samir provides no argument or citation to authority regarding modification of his back child support, we do not consider this issue. RAP 10. 3( a)( 6); Cowiche Canyon Conservancy, 118 Wn.2d at 809.
16 No. 44449 -6 -II
ATTORNEY FEES
Both Samir and Alice request attorney fees on appeal under RCW 26. 09. 140. When
awarding attorney fees under RCW 26. 09. 140, we examine the arguable merit of the issues and
the parties' financial resources. In re Marriage of Griffin, 114 Wn.2d 772, 779, 791 P. 2d 519
1990). If the trial court awards a party substantial property in dissolution, such that the party
can carry his or her own attorney fees, we will not grant attorney fees on appeal. Wright, 319
P. 3d at 52 -53.
Here, the trial court distributed the community assets and liabilities such that each party
received a net value of over $ 340, 000. We deny both Samir' s and Alice' s requests for attorney
fees under RCW 26. 09. 140 because the trial court awarded both parties substantial property in
the dissolution, such that both parties can carry their own attorney fees.
Alice requests attorney fees under RAP 18. 9, arguing that Samir' s appeal was frivolous.
An appeal is frivolous if considering the entire record, the court is convinced that the appeal
presents no debatable issues upon which reasonable minds might differ, and that the appeal is so
devoid of merit that there is no possibility of reversal." Advocates for Responsible Dev: v. W.
Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 170 Wn.2d 577, 580, 245 P. 3d 764 ( 2010). An appeal is not
frivolous where the appellant raises even one debatable issue. Advocates for Responsible Dev.,
170 Wn.2d at 580.
Here, whether substantial evidence supports the trial court' s finding on the date of
separation and whether the trial court abused its discretion by assigning Samir the ring debt
17 No. 44449 -6 -II
presented debatable issues upon which reasonable minds might differ. Because Samir' s appeal
was not frivolous, we deny Alice' s attorney fees request.
Affirmed.
A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RC. W
2. 06. 040, it is so ordered.
We concur:
Le, J.