44 Wn.2d 473, EVA TOIVONEN, Appellant, v. GEORGE E. TOIVONEN, Respondent

[No. 32525. Department Two.      Supreme Court      March 29, 1954.]

EVA TOIVONEN, Appellant, v. GEORGE E. TOIVONEN,
                         Respondent.1

[1] DIVORCE - DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY - DIVISION - DISCRETION OF COURT. Under the divorce statutes, the trial court has a wide discretion in the division and distribution of the property of the parties, and its judgment will not be interfered with unless the supreme court can say that the trial court abused its judicial discretion; and held in this case that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in distributing the property of the parties.

Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for King county, No. 435116, McDonald, J., entered February 5, 1953, upon findings in favor of the defendant, in an action for divorce, tried to the court. Affirmed.

Durham & Guimont, for appellant.

Taylor & Revelle, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. -

This is an appeal from that portion of a decree of divorce distributing the property and awarding attorney's fees.

The parties were married December 4, 1947, and separated in June, 1952. Both parties were of mature age, and both had previously been married and divorced. At the time of the marriage, appellant had no property. She later acquired an inheritance from her mother's estate, a policy of

1 Reported in 268 P. (2d) 456.

[1] See 17 Am. Jur. 367.

 474    TOIVONEN v. TOIVONEN.           [44 Wn. (2d)

life insurance on her life, and a 1941 Chevrolet automobile. At the time of the marriage respondent owned an apartment house, subject to a mortgage executed to his father.

In 1949, the apartment house was sold under contract and a duplex was purchased from the proceeds of the down payment.

The trial court awarded to the wife her separate property and to the husband his separate property (there was no community property, all earnings during the marriage having been used for community expenses); directed respondent to pay appellant the sum of $4,000, payable in forty monthly payments of $100 each; and awarded an additional attorney's fee of $900.

We have examined the record and, because of our disposition of the case, feel that no useful purpose would be served in discussing the testimony.

[1] Under the provisions of our divorce statutes, the trial court has a wide discretion in the division and distribution of the property of the parties, and its judgment will not be interfered with unless this court can say that the trial court abused its judicial discretion. Anderson v. Anderson, 31 Wn. (2d) 197, 195 P. (2d) 986. We are convinced, from our examination of the record, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in this case.

We find no error in the allowance of attorney's fees.

The judgment is affirmed.