Gust v. Gust

Citations

• 78 Wash. 414
• 139 P. 228
• 1914 Wash. LEXIS 1037

Syllabus

<p>Appeal — Review—Findings. Findings in a divorce case upon directly conflicting evidence will be sustained on appeal, where there was evidence tending strongly to sustain the findings, and the whole case depends upon the credibility of the witnesses.</p> <p>Ins Pendens — In Divorce — Eppect—Prior Creditors. In a divorce case in which the wife seeks a share of the separate property of the husband, a notice of lis pendens does not affect the right of a creditor of the husband, pending the divorce, to obtain judgments on valid contracts entered into prior to the marriage; and such judgments would be superior to the rights of the wife in the husband’s property.</p> <p>Divorce — Division op Property. Upon granting a divorce to a wife, an equal division of the property is unwarranted, where, at the time of the marriage, the plaintiff was 41 years old and without property, the defendant was 50 years old and possessed of property alleged in the complaint to be worth $200,000, the parties were married only nine months before the action was commenced, and no children were born to them; and a money award of $12,000 in lieu of property, should be made to the wife, where it appears that the defendant’s property was worth much less than $100,000 and was subject to numerous items of indebtedness; the property was scattered in many counties, and could be converted into money more readily by the defendant than by anybody else.</p> <p>Divorce — Division op Property — Receivers. The appointment of a receiver in an action for a divorce is unwarranted1 where the defendant’s property was all real estate, under the jurisdiction of the court, and the defendant was a real estate dealer and able to handle the property better than any one else, and the wife may be given a judgment which will be made a lien on the property.</p> <p>Divorce — Suit Monet — Attorney’s Fees. Where a complicated divorce case, involving property alleged to be worth $200,000, was before the supreme court upon five p