Id. Watters v. Doud, 95 Wn.2d 835, 840, 631 P.2d 369 (1981) extends the reasoning in Farrow to appreciation following dissolution. In that case, a husband incurred a debt while a couple was married.
However, a creditors recovery in this circumstance "is limited to the net community equity at the time of dissolution of the marriage." Cross, supra, at 145; see Watters v. Doud, 95 Wn.2d 835, 838-41, 631 P.2d 369 (1981).
Nonetheless, the holding is instructive here and supports the conclusion that, substantively, the trial court erred. The cases on which the Bank relies, e.g., Farrow v. Ostrom, 16 Wash.2d 547, 133 P.2d 974 (1943); Watters v. Doud, 95 Wash.2d 835, 631 P.2d 369 (1981), are readily distinguishable on the ground that they involve a community debt, rather than a separate debt such as the debt at issue here. ΒΆ 30 We reverse the trial court's order granting the Bank's motion for summary judgment and remand for entry of a judgment consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion and mandate issued in this case.
Following a dissolution, "community debts may be satisfied from the community's net equity, as measured at the time of divorce, in any property held by either spouse." Watters v. Doud, 95 Wn.2d 835, 841, 631 P.2d 369 (1981). Here, Warner points to nothing in the record indicating the "mutuality on the part of the spouses" that is a prerequisite to the application of RCW 26.16.140.Seizer, 132 Wn.2d at 659.