In the Matter of the Marriage of: Ruth Eve Watson & William Morris Watson

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
In the Matter of the Marriage of:
RUTH EVE WATSON,
Appellant / Cross-Respondent,
and
WILLIAM MORRIS WATSON,
Respondent / Cross-Appellant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 37156-5-III
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
PENNELL, C.J. — Ruth Watson, now known as Ruth Maidon, and William Watson
cross appeal the terms of an order dissolving their marriage. We affirm.
FACTS
Ms. Maidon petitioned in November 2016 for dissolution of her 12-year marriage
to Mr. Watson. Throughout the marriage, Mr. Watson worked as an electrician and
supplied the household’s only income. Ms. Maidon was a homemaker and took care of
the family’s finances. Ms. Maidon’s earning potential was limited due to her education
level (she possessed only a general educational diploma) and health struggles (she has an
autoimmune disorder).
FILED
AUGUST 31, 2021
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division III

No. 37156-5-III
In re Marriage of Watson
2
A temporary order provided Ms. Maidon with $2,700 per month in spousal
maintenance and the marital home in Washington. However, Ms. Maidon left to reside in
Florida over the winter of 2017-18, and Mr. Watson was granted possession of the home.
Subsequently, Ms. Maidon began renting a property in Florida and residing there full
time. In the months preceding the dissolution petition, Ms. Maidon also withdrew
$28,200 in funds from a joint bank account she held with Mr. Watson. She alleges to have
provided $19,000 from these funds to Mr. Watson toward purchase of a “Raptor” fifth
wheel RV (recreational vehicle). Mr. Watson denies this allegation.
A bench trial was held in April 2019. At trial, the court permitted Mr. Watson to
call a witness who he had failed to disclose to Ms. Maidon prior to trial. The trial court
ultimately provided Ms. Maidon $283,736.65 in assets and assessed $10,868.39 in
liabilities, for a net award of $272,868.26. It provided Mr. Watson $303,003.35 in assets
and assessed $13,192.39 in liabilities, for a net award of $289,810.96. The court also
ordered an equalization payment of $8,471.35 to be paid to Ms. Maidon. It found
Ms. Maidon’s testimony not credible concerning the use of $28,200 she withdrew from
the joint account. The court awarded Ms. Maidon spousal maintenance of $2,200 per
month until December 2019.
Both Ms. Maidon and Mr. Watson appeal from the final divorce order.

No. 37156-5-III
In re Marriage of Watson
3
ANALYSIS
Previously undisclosed witness
Ms. Maidon challenges the trial court’s decision allowing a previously undisclosed
witness (Frank Newell) to testify at trial. We find no abuse of discretion.1 There is no
evidence Mr. Watson withheld Mr. Newell’s name for tactical reasons or in violation of a
court order. Mr. Newell’s testimony was brief and limited to issues previously testified to
by Ms. Maidon. Introduction of Mr. Newell’s testimony did not materially disadvantage
Ms. Maidon. We will not disturb the trial court’s decision to allow the testimony.
Spousal maintenance
Ms. Maidon claims the trial court abused its discretion in limiting spousal
maintenance to eight months posttrial. We disagree. The trial court explicitly listed the
statutory factors of RCW 26.09.090 prior to providing its ruling on spousal maintenance.
It considered the age and physical condition of Ms. Maidon and Mr. Watson, the duration
of their marriage, the ability of each party to find employment, and Mr. Watson’s ability
to make spousal support payments. The court’s award of $2,200 per month was based on
Ms. Maidon’s and Mr. Watson’s testimony on their expenses, and was calculated to allow
1 We review a trial court’s evidentiary decisions for abuse of discretion. State v.
Quaale, 182 Wn.2d 191, 196, 340 P.3d 213 (2014).

No. 37156-5-III
In re Marriage of Watson
4
Ms. Maidon to maintain her standard of living. While the trial court could have extended
its maintenance award, it was not required to do so. There was no abuse of discretion.
Credibility of testimony
Ms. Maidon contends the trial court erred by finding her testimony not credible
concerning the use of her withdrawal of $28,200 from the joint bank account. Again, we
disagree. The parties disputed the issue of whether Ms. Maidon used the $28,200 or gave
most of it to Mr. Watson. The court was tasked with deciding which party was more
credible and it ruled in favor of Mr. Watson. We are neither fact finders nor in a position
to second guess the trial court’s credibility determination. The decision regarding the
$28,200 must stand.
Property division
Both parties dispute the trial court’s disposition of property. Ms. Maidon contends
she is entitled to a larger equalization payment because the trial court erroneously
included in her community property award the $28,200 she withdrew from the joint bank
account she held with Mr. Watson. She also claims the distribution was insufficient in
light of her limited earning potential and disability. Mr. Watson contends in his cross
appeal that the trial court erred by including in his community award the separate property

No. 37156-5-III
In re Marriage of Watson
5
in his individual retirement accounts, thus inflating the net worth of the award he received
and requiring him to make an equalization payment to Ms. Maidon. We reject both
claims.
As previously stated, the trial court was entitled to credit Mr. Watson’s claim that
Ms. Maidon appropriated the money she withdrew from the parties’ joint bank account.
As a result, Ms. Maidon’s criticism of the court’s equalization payment fails.
The parties’ complaints about the amount of the trial court’s ultimate distribution
decision also fail. The court properly took into account Mr. Watson’s separate property
in determining a “just and equitable” distribution of property. RCW 26.09.080. Mr.
Watson’s retirement accounts constituted a sizeable portion of the property before the
court. Given Ms. Maidon’s limited earning potential and health problems, it was not an
abuse of discretion for the trial court to consider Mr. Watson’s separate interests in the
retirement accounts when calculating a fair and just final distribution. At the same time,
the fact that the court’s final distribution accounted for Ms. Maidon’s circumstances
defeats her criticisms of the trial court’s final award as inadequate.
CONCLUSION
The dissolution order is affirmed.

No. 37156-5-III
In re Marriage of Watson
6
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to
RCW 2.06.040.
_________________________________
Pennell, C.J.
WE CONCUR:
______________________________
Fearing, J.
______________________________
Lawrence-Berrey, J.