Opinion
No. 39300.
September 19, 1968.
[1] Divorce — Disposition of Property — Review. Absent a manifest abuse of discretion, the Supreme Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court in apportioning the separate and community property of parties to a divorce.
See Ann. 164 A.L.R. 329; 24 Am.Jur.2d, Divorce and Separation § 933.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Whatcom County, No. 40746, J.S. Kurtz, J. Pro Tem., entered May 19, 1966. Affirmed.
Action for divorce. Plaintiff appeals from the disposition of property.
Joseph T. Pemberton and Jacob L. Smith, for appellant.
David E. Rhea, for respondent.
Those assignments of error on this appeal which are cognizable under Rule on Appeal 43 all direct themselves to a single issue — the division and disposition of the community and separate property of the parties. [1] We have carefully reviewed the somewhat scanty narrative statement of facts and the exhibits. From these it is indicated that the parties during the comparatively short duration of their marriage accumulated substantial indebtedness. The trial court's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decree reveal that the outstanding obligations and the ultimate and decretal liability therefor played a significant role in its apportionment of the separate and community properties of the parties. Under the circumstances as they appear from the limited record, we can find no manifest abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court. This being so, we will not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court and/or embark upon a redistribution of the pertinent assets and liabilities. Weaver v. Weaver, 70 Wn.2d 559, 424 P.2d 637 (1967).
The judgment is accordingly affirmed in all respects.