IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION ONE In the Matter of the Marriage of ) No. 78989-9-I HOVSEP MKRTCHYAN, ) Appellant, and ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION LILITADAMYAN, ) ) FILED: February 18, 2020 Respondent. ) VERELLEN, J. — Hovsep Mkrtchyan appeals the court’s entry of a permanent parenting plan and division of community property. Mkrtchyan argues the court abused its discretion because it did not consider each of the RCW 26.09.1 87(3)(a) factors before entering the parenting plan and because it did not order an additional psychological evaluation to confirm one expert’s testimony. On the record presented, Mkrtchyan fails to show the trial court abused the broad discretion it has when entering a parenting plan. Mkrtchyan argues the court erred by classifying the couple’s house as community rather than separate property because, first, the down payment for the house came solely from his separate funds and, second, his then-wife transferred her interest in the house to him in a quitclaim deed. Because substantial evidence No. 78989-9-1/2 supports the courts findings of fact and those findings support its conclusions of law, the court did not err. Based on the parties’ financial needs and abilities to pay, we award Adamyan attorney fees on appeal. Therefore, we affirm. FACTS Hovsep Mkrtchyan had been living in Washington and working for Microsoft when he vacationed in his native Armenia and met fellow Armenian Lilit Adamyan. After a brief and mostly long-distance courtship, the two married on August 29, 2014, and Adamyan moved to Redmond with Mkrtchyan. She soon became pregnant with their son, M.M. In September of 2015, they bought a house in Lynnwood. After M.M. was born, Adamyan was a full-time parent and homemaker, and Mkrtchyan continued working for Microsoft as a senior software developer. The couple’s marriage became increasingly contentious and, on October 19, 2016, Mkrtchyan filed for dissolution. The couple engaged in almost 20 months of acrimonious pretrial litigation. Mkrtchyan contended that Adamyan was mentally ill and a danger to their child. Adamyan contended that Mkrtchyan was abusive, using money and isolation to control her. The court appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL) to investigate the allegations and ordered both parents to undergo mental health evaluations. Dr. 2 No. 78989-9-1/3 Monique Brown evaluated Mkrtchyan and Adamyan, determined Adamyan was not mentally ill, and recommended therapy for both parents. After a 10-day trial, the court granted the dissolution and entered a final parenting plan. The parents have shared decision-making authority and equal residential time with their son. As part of the plan, both parents must participate in one year of individual therapy. The court found that the couple’s house was community property, although Mkrtchyan used his separate funds for the down payment. The court awarded Mkrtchyan the house and required that he pay Adamyan a $65,000 equalization payment. Mkrtchyan appeals. ANALYSIS I. Parenting Plan We review a trial court’s decisions on the provisions of a parenting plan for abuse of discretion.1 A court abuses its discretion where its decision ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals