In re Marriage of Orman, (Div. I,
Unpublished, Filed April 28, 2008)
Facts: Douglas and Leslie Orman married on May 5, 2001, separated on September 17, 2005 and the court dissolved their marriage on December 13, 2006. The property before the court at trial included a house in Redmond, a Kirkland townhouse, a Charles Schwab account valued at $775,297.73, an individual retirement account (IRA) and 401(k) accounts, cars and various household and personal items. Prior to and during the marriage, Douglas worked at Microsoft where he earned stock options. Douglas presented evidence that 99.32 percent of the total proceeds he received from the exercise of stock options during the marriage which went into a Charles Schwaab account in both names resulted from options granted and vested before the marriage, while 0.68 percent of the proceeds resulted from options that vested during the marriage. Leslie did not dispute Douglas's claim that 99.32 percent of the total stock option proceeds were his separate property. The trial court listed the Schwaab account as community property because it went into an account in both names and any community and separate property interests were commingled. The trial cou8rt then awarded the wife 50% of the Schwaab account.
Decision: The appellate court stated that all the property (separate and community) was before the court and the trial court had broad discretion to make a fair and equitable division of property. The court stated that review of the division of property would be only for an abuse of the trial court’s discretion. The court first stated that where specific evidence demonstrates that community funds comprise less than 0.9 percent of an account, it would be inaccurate to conclude that the entire account is community property as a result of commingling. Similarly, merely opening an account as joint tenants with right of survivorship is not determinative. Then the court stated that it would have divided the Schwab account equally between the parties regardless of its characterization, the appellate court allowed the decision to stand.