IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON VAN NHU HUYNH, No. 78417-0-I Respondent, DIVISION ONE V. UNPUBLISHED OPINION LEUNG HING LI, Appellant. FILED: October 7, 2019 ANDRUS, J. — Leung Hing Li appeals a trial court ruling that his ex-wife, Van Nhu Huynh, adversely possessed a Seattle home that Li and Huynh owned as cotenants.1 Li contends Huynh failed to prove she ousted him from this property because she confirmed their equal ownership after she demanded he leave. Li also challenges the trial court’s determination that after their divorce, Li had no ownership interest in a business known as Asia Discount Center. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the trial court’s factual findings of adverse possession and ownership of Asia Discount Center. We affirm. FACTS Van Nhu Huynh immigrated to the United States as a refugee from Vietnam in 1980. Later the same year, she married Leung Hing Li. Shortly before the marriage, in 1979, Li purchased a home at 4431 Letitia Ave. S. (hereafter the 1 This is Li’s second appeal. In 2016, this court reversed summary judgment in Huynh’s favor, concluding there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether Huynh had ousted Li from the property. Huynh v. Li, No. 73457-1, slip op. at 10 (April 25, 2016). No. 78417-0-1/2 “Letitia property”). Li paid a down payment of $7,500 toward the purchase price of $51,000, and financed the remainder. The Letitia property was the couple’s home for well over a decade. During their marriage, the marital community made the mortgage payments and paid for maintenance, repairs, upkeep, insurance, and taxes. Li and Huynh started three businesses during their marriage, two of which are relevant to this case: Asia Discount Center, which sold various goods and groceries imported from Asia, and United Imports, which imported and sold Asian furniture. In 1987, Li hired an attorney to represent him in obtaining a divorce. Li filed a petition for dissolution in May 1987, but he dismissed it in June in order to close the purchase of property located at 3015 Beacon Avenue South in Seattle. Li testified he used community assets to acquire the Beacon Avenue property. A month later, at the end of July, 1987, he re-filed for divorce, submitting essentially the same petition. Neither of Li’s petitions listed any of the parties’ real property or United Imports. The final decree, entered in November 1987, indicated that the parties did not own any real property and did not list United Imports as an asset to be divided in the dissolution. The decree identified Asia Discount Center as community property and provided that the parties were to sell it and divide the proceeds equally. Huynh did not have an attorney for the dissolution and the trial court found she did not understand the contents of it. Huynh testified, and the court found, that the parties agreed she would take Asia Discount Center, and Li would take United 2 No. 78417-0-1/3 Imports. The trial court explicitly found ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals