Full Opinion

FILED OCTOBER 29, 2026 In the Office of the Clerk of Court WA State Court of Appeals, Division III IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE In the Matter of the Marriage of ) ) No. 41005-6-III DANA LEIGH GOLDSTEIN, ) ) Appellant, ) ) and ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) TODD ALAN GOLDSTEIN, ) ) Respondent. ) HILL, J. — Dana and Todd Goldstein married in 2009 and separated in 2022. At the conclusion of a two-day dissolution trial, the court divided the parties’ property. Ms. Goldstein appeals the court’s distribution, arguing the court abused its discretion. We disagree and affirm. No. 41005-6-III In re Marriage of Goldstein FACTS Dana and Todd Goldstein married in February 2009 and separated in 2022. After their separation, Ms. Goldstein filed a dissolution petition. At the conclusion of a two- day trial, the court issued an oral ruling followed by written findings and conclusions. The court concluded each party was entitled to $428,054.19. After dividing the property and deducting liabilities, the trial court ordered Mr. Goldstein to pay Ms. Goldstein a $328,715.53 equalization payment by transferring a portion of his GM 401(k). Ms. Goldstein objected to the equalization payment being satisfied through the GM 401(k) transfer. She argued distributions would be subject to tax consequences and penalties if she withdrew funds early. She requested the court order Mr. Goldstein make the equalization payment, at least in part, through his Bask cash account so that she could have access to more liquid assets. The trial court concluded the GM 401(k) transfer was equitable given Ms. Goldstein’s testimony that she was concerned about her ability to retire. Ms. Goldstein also requested spousal maintenance and attorney fees, which the trial court denied. Ms. Goldstein filed a motion for reconsideration, challenging the trial court’s decision on the equalization payment, calculation of community property, and denial of spousal maintenance and fees. The trial court denied the motion. Ms. Goldstein appeals. 2 No. 41005-6-III In re Marriage of Goldstein ANALYSIS Standard of Review Trial courts have broad discretion when distributing property and liabilities in dissolution proceedings. RCW 26.09.080; Brewer v. Brewer, 137 Wn.2d 756, 770, 976 P.2d 102 (1999). We review a trial court’s distribution of property in dissolution proceedings for manifest abuse of discretion. Brewer, 137 Wn.2d at 769. A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is manifestly unreasonable or based on untenable grounds or reasons. Gildon v. Simon Prop. Grp., Inc., 158 Wn.2d 483, 494, 145 P.3d 1196 (2006). Bask Account and Equalization Payment Ms. Goldstein contends the trial court abused its discretion by ordering Mr. Goldstein to make an equalization payment through the GM 401(k) account. Because early distributions are subject to a penalty and withdrawals are subject to tax, Ms. Goldstein argues the distribution is inequitable. Similarly, Ms. Goldstein asserts the trial court erred in awarding the Bask account to Mr. Goldstein. The trial court must make a just and equitable distribution of property after considering (1) the nature and extent of the community and separate property, (2) the duration of the marriage, and (3) the economic circumstances of each spouse at the time the property is divided. RCW 26.09.080. The trial court properly considers tax consequences when valuing marital assets when the tax consequences are imminent or 3 No. 41005-6-III In re Marriage of Goldstein directly result from the disposition and the amount is not speculative. In re Marriage of Hay, 80 Wn. App. 202, 206, 907 P.2d 334 (1995). The trial court found the Bask account was community property and included its value in the community property total. In the final order, the court assigned the Bask account to Mr. Goldstein. To offset the disparity in assets assigned to Mr. Goldstein, the trial court ordered an equalization payment through the transfer of a portion of Mr. Goldstein’s GM 401(k) account. Ms. Goldstein requested that at least part of the equalization payment come from the Bask account to avoid tax and early withdrawal penalties. The trial court declined this request, reasoning the GM 401(k) transfer was appropriate because Ms. Goldstein was primarily concerned about retirement and she had sufficient funds to support herself until retirement. 1 Ms. Goldstein fails to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion. First, Ms. Goldstein does not argue that the trial court mischaracterized the property at issue or misunderstood her testimony regarding retirement. Second, tax consequences do not result directly from the trial court’s disposition of the GM 401(k), nor are those consequences immediate. Instead, the GM 401(k) distributions will be subject to tax when Ms. Goldstein withdraws from the account. The trial court considered the after-tax effects of its property distribution and did not err merely because it did not place the 1 Ms. Goldstein was 59 years old at the time of the trial. 4 No. 41005-6-III In re Marriage of Goldstein parties in exactly equal financial positions at the time of dissolution. In re Marriage of Wright, 179 Wn. App. 257, 262, 319 P.3d 45 (2013). Athene IRA Ms. Goldstein argues the trial court made a material mathematical error in calculating the community property value of the Athene IRA. She reasons the community property value of the Athene IRA was $49,032.92 and the trial court improperly listed the separate property amount as the same, cancelling out the community interest. We disagree. Here, the trial court valued the community interest in the Athene IRA at $49,032.92. Ms. Goldstein is correct that the trial court mistakenly listed the value of Mr. Goldstein’s separate property interest in the Athene IRA as $49,032.92 instead of $55,509.00. However, this was merely a scrivener’s error under Mr. Goldstein’s separate property column, and Ms. Goldstein fails to demonstrate that this error had any effect on the community property calculations. Ms. Goldstein’s Separate Debt Ms. Goldstein next contends the trial court erred in deducting her separate personal debt from her equalization payment. The trial court subtracted $7,909.00 in liabilities from the subtotal, resulting in a lower equalization payment. This figure seemingly represented the difference between Mr. Goldstein’s personal debt and Ms. Goldstein’s personal debt at the time of separation. However, the exhibits showing 5 No. 41005-6-III In re Marriage of Goldstein these debts are not in the record. Ms. Goldstein fails to demonstrate the trial court abused its discretion. Merrill Accounts Ms. Goldstein argues the trial court omitted her pre-marital contributions to her Merrill 401(k) and Merrill IRA from her separate property. We disagree. The trial court concluded these contributions were Ms. Goldstein’s separate property. The trial court held the remaining amount in the accounts was community property and subtracted the pre-marital contributions from the value. The trial court properly accounted for Ms. Goldstein’s separate property interest in both accounts. Spousal Maintenance Ms. Goldstein contends the trial court erred in denying her request for spousal maintenance because it did not provide her with sufficient liquid assets. We disagree. The trial court has discretion to grant maintenance for either spouse after considering several factors, including the financial resources of the parties, standard of living during the marriage, duration of the marriage, age of the parties, and ability of the party from whom maintenance is sought to meet their needs while meeting those of the party seeking maintenance. RCW 26.09.090. Ms. Goldstein requested $1,500.00 of monthly maintenance for 48 months. The trial court considered Ms. Goldstein’s financial resources, the abilities of the parties to meet their needs separately, the standard of living established during the marriage, the 6 No. 41005-6-III In re Marriage of Goldstein length of the marriage, and their age, physical, emotional, and financial conditions. The court found the parties did not have a particularly high standard of living during the marriage. The court also accounted for Ms. Goldstein’s purchase of a condo, the $35,000.00 she had remaining after furnishing the condo, and her $58,000.00 salary. Based on these findings, the court denied Ms. Goldstein’s request for maintenance. Contrary to Ms. Goldstein’s argument that the trial court did not consider her need for maintenance, the trial court applied the relevant statutory factors in considering her request. She fails to demonstrate the trial court abused its discretion. Fees Ms. Goldstein argues the trial court’s denial of fees was improper under RCW 26.09.140. Because Mr. Goldstein’s monthly net income and liquid assets significantly exceeded Ms. Goldstein’s, Ms. Goldstein contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying her fees. We again disagree. RCW 26.09.140 permits the trial court to order a party to pay the reasonable attorney fees and costs for another party to maintain a dissolution proceeding after considering the financial resources of both parties. Ms. Goldstein relies on In re Marriage of Steadman, 63 Wn. App. 523, 530, 821 P.2d 59 (1991), which held a trial court abuses its discretion under this statute when failing to evaluate a party’s ability to pay. Here, the trial court evaluated the financial conditions of the parties and Ms. Goldstein’s ability to pay, and she fails to demonstrate error. 7 No. 41005-6-III In re Marriage of Goldstein CONCLUSION Ms. Goldstein requests fees under RAP 18.1 and RCW 26.09.140. Because Ms. Goldstein neither prevails nor demonstrates a need, we decline this request. Affirmed. 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. Hill, J. WE CONCUR: Cooney, A.C.J. Murphy, J. 8