In re KATHLEEN M. GRANT, Appellant, and JOHN D. GRANT, Respondent.
Fearing, C.J.
This
appeal pits the importance of finality in litigation against
the requisite for a full accounting of assets in a marital
dissolution. Based on Washington statutes and the Supreme
Court's wisdom in Yeats v. Estate of Yeats, 90
Wn.2d 201, 580 P.2d 617 (1978), we side with an inclusive
accounting. In this partition action, we reverse the trial
court's ruling that a dissolution decree's grant to
the husband of the "balance of the assets"
effectively disposed of the husband's interest in a
retirement account when the list of assets presented to the
earlier dissolution court omitted the account.
FACTS
This
appeal arises from an action to partition the former
husband's interest in a retirement plan never mentioned
in a 2010 divorce decree. The subject couple, Kathleen and
John Grant, married on November 18, 1978, and separated on
June 23, 2009. During the marriage, John Grant worked for the
Washington State Department of Revenue for twenty years. John
is a certified public accountant. During the marriage,
Kathleen Grant cleaned houses and later operated a pizza
parlor. The pizza business lost money.
Since
Kathleen Grant seeks to partition her former husband's
interest in his Washington State Public Employees Retirement
System (PERS) pension plan, the parties filed accusatory
declarations that detail their respective views as to whether
Kathleen knew of John's participation in the plan at the
time of the dissolution. John Grant insists that the couple
often discussed the existence of the retirement plan.
Kathleen's father labored for the State of Washington and
retired with a state pension. Kathleen received the
parties' mail, which occasionally included PERS
statements and newsletters. The parties discussed John
switching from one PERS plan to another plan. According to
John, Kathleen saw pay stubs that showed a contribution to
the PERS plan. Kathleen told the couple's children that
John should keep his retirement plan. During the divorce
action, John provided Kathleen all records needed for her to
ascertain the parties' assets. John questions how
Kathleen came to learn about his retirement plan, if she
lacked knowledge of the plan before the divorce. He observes
that Kathleen sought a portion of his retirement account only
after his payments to her ended.
In her
declaration, Kathleen Grant declares that the couple rarely
discussed finances. John handled the couple's
investments. She did not open mail addressed to her husband.
Kathleen did not handle John's pay stubs since the State
paid John by direct deposit. According to Kathleen, John
never mentioned a retirement account through his employment.
When Kathleen referenced "his retirement" to the
children and to the dissolution court, she spoke of 401(k)s,
individual retirement accounts, and an investment account or
two, not an unknown retirement plan.
Without
the assistance of an attorney, the couple, in February 2010,
petitioned for marital dissolution. The petition, prepared by
Kathleen, read:
We have made a marital settlement agreement dividing our
property and our bills. We are satisfied with this agreement.
The attached agreement was signed freely and voluntarily by
each of us, and we intend to be bounded [sic] by it.
Clerk's Papers (CP) at 36. Our copy of the petition lacks
any attachment. Kathleen Grant and John Grant may agree on
only one proposition-the parties intended to divide their
assets evenly.
On May
10, 2010, Kathleen Grant appeared before the Kittitas County
Superior Court for entry of a decree of dissolution. The
trial court, unconvinced of the soundness of the proposed
decree, rejected the proposed decree. The following colloquy,
in part, occurred between Kathleen and the dissolution court:
The Court: Okay. I don't understand what the loan
calculator's in here for.
[KATHLEEN GRANT]: Well, as opposed to taking out his
retirement and all that and get fines, penalties, he's
going to pay me quarterly. Or, if you wanted to break it down
to monthly, it would be 2, 000 a month. And that way he can
still, you know, keep his-
The Court: He is a [Certified Public Accountant]?
[KATHLEEN GRANT]: Uh-huh. As I said, the reason he set it up
like that was as opposed to take everything out of his
retirement-
CP at 27 (emphasis added).
On May
24, 2010, Kathleen and John Grant appeared before the
Kittitas County Superior Court for entry of the same
dissolution decree. The trial court then entered findings of
fact, conclusions of law, and a decree of dissolution. Two
sections of the decree respectively divided the property
among husband and wife as:
3.2 Property to be Awarded the Husband
The husband is awarded as his separate property the property
set forth in Exhibit copy attached A [sic]. This exhibit is
attached or filed and incorporated by reference as part of
this decree.
The husband is awarded as his separate property the property
set forth in the separation contract or prenuptial agreement
executed by the parties on (date) Feb. 1, 2010. The
separation contract or prenuptial agreement is incorporated
by reference as part of this Decree. The prenuptial agreement
or, pursuant to RCW 26.09.070(5), the separation contract is
filed with the court.
The husband is awarded as his separate property the following
property (list real estate, furniture, vehicles, pensions,
insurance, bank accounts, etc.): See attachement.
3.3 Property to be Awarded to the Wife
The wife is awarded as her separate property the property set
forth in Exhibit copy attached B [sic]. This exhibit is
attached or filed and incorporated by reference as part of
this decree.
The wife is awarded as her separate property the property set
forth in the separation contract or prenuptial agreement
referenced above.
The wife is awarded as her separate property the following
property (list real estate, furniture, vehicles, pensions,
insurance, bank accounts, etc.): See attachment.
CP at 77-78 (boldface omitted). The decree lacked any
attachment. The parties, nonetheless, attached two signed
pages to the findings of fact and conclusions of law. The
first page read:
Marital Settlement Agreement
AGREEMENT TO DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS
WE (JOHN D. AND KATHLEEN M. GRANT) AGREE THAT KATHLEEN
RECEIVES $178, 000 AND OWNERSHIP AND ALL RIGHTS TO
GRANT'S PIZZA PLACE. JOHN RECEIVES THE BALANCE OF THE
ASSETS AND OWNERSHIP OF THE HOUSE. NOTE: THIS AGREEMENT DOES
NOT INCLUDE PERSONAL ...