In the Matter of the Marriage of MARY M. WRIGHT, Respondent, and KIM B. WRIGHT, Appellant.
Order Filed Date February 3, 2014
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION TO TAKE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND GRANTING MOTION TO PUBLISH OPINION
Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's opinion filed December 16, 2013 along with a motion to take additional evidence or, in the alternative, to publish the court's opinion. Respondent filed a response to the motions. After consideration of the motions and response, the panel has determined that the motion for reconsideration and to take additional evidence should be denied and the motion to publish should be granted.
Now therefore, it is hereby
ORDERED that appellant's motion for reconsideration is denied; it is further ORDERED that appellant's motion to take additional evidence is denied; it is further
ORDERED that appellant's motion to publish is granted.
Dr. Kim Wright appeals the property distribution and maintenance order in the dissolution of his 30-plus year marriage to Mary Wright. We conclude that (1) The property distribution was within the trial court's discretion; (2) ample evidence supports the trial court's determination of the date the Wrights separated; (3) the trial court correctly applied Washington law in valuing the surgical practice's goodwill, and soundly exercised its discretion in distributing the Wright's community interest in the practice; (4) Dr. Wright waived the issue of whether certain assets were his separate property; and (5) the award of spousal maintenance was an appropriate exercise of the trial court's discretion. We affirm the trial court's property distribution and provision of maintenance, and deny Dr. Wright's request for attorney fees on appeal.
Ms. Wright petitioned for dissolution in April 2011. The issues before the trial court were child support, spousal maintenance, and the distribution of assets. The Wrights agreed to the terms of a parenting plan and the values of most assets.Following trial, the court entered a decree of dissolution and distributed the property.
The court awarded Ms. Wright $8, 526, 834 in community property, a $1.7 million equalizing payment, and $1 million in spousal maintenance spread over three years. The court awarded Dr. Wright $8, 657, 042 in community property and $979, 966 in separate property, less the $1.7 million equalizing payment. The court determined that Dr. Wright would work for a minimum of 2.5 years after the dissolution, and earn a minimum of $4 million annually.
Dr. Wright appeals.
A trial court in dissolution proceedings has broad discretion to make a just and equitable distribution of property based on the factors enumerated in RCW 26.09.080. The court may distribute all ...