Summary
In Redmond v. Redmond, 229 Kan. 565, 629 P.2d 142, 142 (1981), the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed a district court's division of a life insurance policy in a divorce action as within the court's discretion.
Summary of this case from Willoughby v. WilloughbyOpinion
No. 51,007
Opinion filed June 10, 1981.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
DIVORCE — Division of Real Property and Life Insurance Cash Values — Trial Court Discretion Not Abused. K.S.A. 1980 Supp. 23-201 is examined and it is held that amendments to the statute since Harrah v. Harrah, 196 Kan. 142, 409 P.2d 1007 (1966), have not altered the reasoning nor the holding therein that property owned by either party to a marriage is subject to division in a divorce proceeding.
Review of the judgment of the Court of Appeals in an unpublished decision filed February 6, 1981. Appeal from Shawnee district court; MARY SCHOWENGERDT, associate judge. Judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the district court is affirmed. Judgment of the district court is affirmed. Opinion filed June 10, 1981.
Charles S. Scott, of Scott, Scott, Scott Scott, of Topeka, argued the cause and was on the brief for the appellant.
Malcolm G. Copeland, of Topeka, argued the cause and was on the brief for the appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
This is an appeal by J.L. Redmond (defendant-appellant), the husband in a divorce action, contesting the trial court's division of property, and award of attorney fees to B.J. Redmond (plaintiff-appellee). This court granted the husband's petition for review of the Court of Appeals unpublished opinion which affirmed the trial court.
On appeal the husband contends the trial court erred in its interpretation of K.S.A. 1980 Supp. 23-201 and K.S.A. 1980 Supp. 60-1610( c); and abused its discretion in averaging real estate appraisals, dividing cash value of life insurance policies, and awarding attorney fees.
The trial court and Court of Appeals properly concluded no conflict exists between K.S.A. 1980 Supp. 23-201 and K.S.A. 1980 Supp. 60-1610( c). This issue was fully discussed by the Court of Appeals in Wachholz v. Wachholz, 4 Kan. App. 2d 161, 603 P.2d 647 (1979), and we hereby adopt that opinion as a correct interpretation of the law as applied to the facts in this case.
We explored the legislative history and intent behind the 1978 amendment to K.S.A. 23-201, including the official minutes of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees. We also reviewed our decisions in Cady v. Cady, 224 Kan. 339, 581 P.2d 358 (1978), and Harrah v. Harrah, 196 Kan. 142, 409 P.2d 1007 (1966), correctly cited in Wachholz.
After examining the record, including real estate value appraisals, trial transcript, and trial court memorandum opinion, we are satisfied the trial court fairly exercised its power of discretion in dividing the real property and life insurance cash values, and awarding attorney fees.
The decision of the lower court is affirmed.