Opinion
No. 51870-4-I.
Filed: March 8, 2004. UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appeal from Superior Court of Snohomish County. Docket No. 97-3-01521-1. Judgment or order under review. Date filed: 01/17/2003.
Counsel for Appellant(s), Gregory L. Davies, Attorney at Law, PO Box 1543, Everett, WA 98206-1543.
Counsel for Respondent(s), Bruce I. Weiss, Lynnwood Fin Center II, 19031 33rd Ave W Ste 309, Lynnwood, WA 98036-4731.
A trial court may not modify its dissolution decree by extending rights given to one party beyond the scope originally intended. Here, the trial court's qualified domestic relations order awarded the exact amount that the trial court originally intended in the dissolution decree. Therefore the order did not modify the decree. We affirm.
FACTS
On May 5, 1999, the trial court entered a dissolution decree that awarded each party one half of Mr. Escobar's Boeing VIP Savings/Investment account (VIP), then valued at $104,186. On September 11, 2000, the trial court granted Mr. Escobar's motion for an order of clarification that Ms. Escobar's interest in the VIP was $32,093. This amount reflected one half of the VIP's value measured on May 5, 1999, after a $40,000 reimbursement to Mr. Escobar.
($104,186 — $40,000) ÷ 2 = $32,093.
On January 17, 2003, Ms. Escobar presented a proposed qualified domestic relations order to the trial court that awarded her $32,093 from Mr. Escobar's VIP account. Mr. Escobar objected to the proposed order on the ground that it impermissibly modified the dissolution decree. He presented evidence that by January 17, 2003, the VIP's value was only $33,236.76. Thus, he argued that the proposed order would award Ms. Escobar more than one half of the VIP's value as of January 2003.
The trial court entered the order as presented and denied Mr. Escobar's motion for reconsideration. This appeal followed.
DECISION The Qualified Domestic Relations Order
A trial court does not have the authority to modify a dissolution decree absent conditions justifying the reopening of the judgment. A decree is modified when rights given to one party are extended beyond the scope originally intended, or reduced. Mr. Escobar argues that the qualified domestic relations order impermissibly modified the dissolution decree because it awarded Ms. Escobar an amount greater than the trial court originally intended. We disagree.
In re Marriage of Thompson, 97 Wn. App. 873, 878, 988 P.2d 499 (1999).
Thompson, 97 Wn. App. at 878.
On Mr. Escobar's own motion, the trial court clarified its dissolution decree to state that Ms. Escobar's interest in the VIP was $32,093. This amount was based on the VIP's value as of the date the trial court entered the decree. The January 17, 2003 order awarded Ms. Escobar $32,093, the exact amount the trial court intended she would receive by its decree. The order clearly did not modify the dissolution decree, and Mr. Escobar's argument fails.
Attorney Fees
Mr. Escobar argues that the trial court erred by denying his request for attorney fees related to the qualified domestic relations order. But Mr. Escobar fails to cite to the record to support this alleged error. Because the briefing on this argument is inadequate for proper review, we decline to consider it.
RAP 10.3(a)(5); see Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. Bosley, 118 Wn.2d 801, 809, 828 P.2d 549 (1992).
Affirmed. Mr. Escobar shall pay Ms. Escobar's costs on appeal.
KENNEDY and AGID, JJ., concur.