## Facts

- Eunice Thomas and Marvin Thomas married in 1940 and separated in 1985 after a long-term marriage.
- During the marriage, they accumulated community property worth more than $1 million, much of it rental real estate.
- Marvin managed the rental properties and controlled the related rent receipts and payments.
- A bench trial was held in 1987 to divide the parties’ property and debts in a “just and equitable” manner.
- During the separation period, Marvin received more than $100,000 in rental income and shared little of it with Eunice.
- The trial court twice ordered Marvin to provide a complete accounting for the separation period, including rents, expenses, mortgage payments, repairs, taxes, and insurance; he did not provide a complete accounting.
- Because the record did not support a reliable net-income figure, the trial court estimated net rental income by subtracting mortgage payments from gross rental receipts.
- Rather than entering a separate money judgment for Eunice’s share of the estimated net rental income, the trial court offset that share against funds Eunice already held from the sale of another asset, resulting in no separate rental-income award to her.
- Eunice appealed (later substituted by her estate), challenging the fairness of the property division, the treatment of separation-period rental proceeds, the rejection of her claim that a property transfer involving 419 Fourth Street was fraudulent, and the denial of attorney’s fees.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court manifestly abused its discretion under RCW 26.09.080 in dividing the parties’ property and liabilities.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in estimating and allocating separation-period rental income after Marvin failed to provide ordered accountings, including by offsetting Eunice’s share against other funds she held.
3. Whether the trial court erred in refusing to find that the transfer involving the 419 Fourth Street property was a fraudulent conveyance.
4. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying attorney’s fees at trial, and whether either party was entitled to attorney’s fees on appeal under RCW 26.09.140 and RAP 18.1.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the dissolution court’s overall distribution of property and liabilities, holding the decree was within the trial court’s broad discretion under RCW 26.09.080.
- The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s use of an estimation method for separation-period rental income in light of Marvin’s failure to provide complete records, but remanded for limited proceedings to correct or clarify the rental-income/offset treatment to ensure it matched the trial court’s intended equitable distribution.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s refusal to find a fraudulent conveyance regarding the 419 Fourth Street transaction.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of trial-level attorney’s fees and denied attorney’s fees on appeal where the parties did not provide the financial affidavits required to support a need-based fee request.

## Legal Principles

- Under RCW 26.09.080, a trial court must make a “just and equitable” distribution of property and liabilities after considering the nature and extent of community and separate property, the duration of the marriage, and the spouses’ economic circumstances.
- Property distributions in dissolution are reviewed for manifest abuse of discretion; an unequal distribution may be upheld if it is equitable when the entire allocation of assets and debts is considered.
- When a spouse who controls financial information fails to provide court-ordered accountings, the trial court may resolve disputed income questions by using reasonable estimates based on the available record, so long as the result fits the court’s overall distribution plan.
- Appellate review of fact-driven determinations (including whether a transfer is fraudulent) is deferential; the appellate court does not reweigh evidence where the record supports the trial court’s findings.
- Attorney’s fees in dissolution proceedings are discretionary and commonly depend on need and ability to pay; on appeal, a party seeking fees under RCW 26.09.140 must comply with RAP 18.1, including submitting supporting financial information.

## Conclusion

Marriage of Thomas holds that Washington trial courts have wide discretion to craft a fair property and debt distribution in dissolution, including using approximations for separation-period rental income when the managing spouse fails to provide ordered records; the Court of Appeals largely affirmed the decree, affirmed the rejection of a fraudulent-conveyance claim, denied attorney’s fees, and remanded only for limited adjustment or clarification of the separation rental-income offset to ensure it aligned with the trial court’s equitable plan.


Marriage of Thomas, 821 P.2d 1227 (1991)