In the Matter of the Marriage of: Marty C. McCoy & Dennis N. McCoy

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
In the Matter of the Marriage of:
MARTY C. McCOY,
Appellant,
and
DENNIS N. McCOY,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 39159-1-III
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
PENNELL, J. — Marty McCoy appeals from a final divorce order issued after
a bench trial. Because Marty McCoy has failed to provide a sufficient record to allow for
review of the trial court’s decision, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Marty and Dennis McCoy separated in 2016. In 2017, the parties appear to have
signed a hand-written agreement that provided as follows:
I, Marty McCoy, Agree to Give Dennis McCoy (Aguayo) $5000.00 For
The Final Payment Towards our Divorce.
Payments of $300.00 on June 15, 2017 and Payment of $3950.00 on
June 24, 2017 Have Been Paid. Balance of $750.00.
/s/ Dennis McCoy
Dennis McCoy
/s/ M C M
Marty McCoy
FILED
OCTOBER 29, 2024
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division III

No. 39159-1-III
In re Marriage of McCoy
2
/s/ [C.M.]
Witness – [C.M.]
Clerk’s Papers at 49.
Marty McCoy petitioned for dissolution in September 2020. 1 The petition alleged
that the parties’ personal property had already been divided and that Dennis McCoy had
signed and released all interest in the family home. Both parties appeared pro se and the
matter proceeded to trial.
The record on review does not include a report of proceedings from the trial court.
However, the clerk’s papers transmitted from the trial court contain several court orders
addressing matters decided at trial.
The trial court’s findings and conclusions state that the marital community ended
in July 2016 and that the parties did not have an enforceable “separation contract.”
Id. at 98; see also id. at 109. The trial court required Marty McCoy to refinance the family
home within six months and to pay Dennis McCoy her share of the equity in the
residence, calculated at $113,000. The court ordered spousal support for Dennis McCoy
in the amount of $300 per month for 24 months. The court credited Marty McCoy’s
1 In his opening brief, Marty McCoy indicates there was a previous divorce
petition filed by Dennis McCoy that was dismissed for want of prosecution. However,
the record on review does not include any documentation of a prior petition.

No. 39159-1-III
In re Marriage of McCoy
3
$5,000 payment in June 2017 toward the spousal support obligation.
The parenting plan noted that, by the time of trial, the parties had one minor child.
The parenting plan placed restrictions on Marty McCoy based on domestic violence, a sex
offense, and substance abuse. The court limited Marty McCoy’s contact with his minor
child to supervised visitation. Marty McCoy was allowed telephone or video access to
the child, but the parenting plan specified the child could “decline” any contact. Id. at 67.
The plan also required Marty McCoy to obtain an anger management evaluation and
comply with any recommended treatment.
Marty McCoy filed pro se a notice of appeal, stating he was appealing the
“EQUITY AMOUNT of Real Property.” See Notice of Appeal, In re Marriage of McCoy,
No. 39159-1-III, at 1 (Wash. Ct. App. Sept. 9, 2022). Marty McCoy appended the trial
court’s final divorce order to his notice of appeal.
ANALYSIS
In his opening brief, Marty McCoy’s only issue for appeal is identified as “Should
the In-House Separation Agreement be Enforced?” Appel[l]ant[’s] Br. at 8. 2
2 Marty McCoy appears to raise additional issues in his reply brief. Those are
not properly before the court. See RAP 10.3(c) (reply brief to be “limited to a response
to the issues raised in the brief to which the reply brief is directed”); Cowiche Canyon
Conservancy v. Bosley, 118 Wn.2d 801, 809, 828 P.2d 549 (1992) (“An issue raised and
argued for the first time in a reply brief is too late to warrant consideration.”).

No. 39159-1-III
In re Marriage of McCoy
4
Although he is proceeding pro se, Marty McCoy is held to the same standard as an
attorney and must comply with all procedural rules. See In re Marriage of Olson, 69 Wn.
App. 621, 626, 850 P.2d 527 (1993). The rules require an appellant to provide “argument
in support of the issues presented for review, together with citations to legal authority and
references to relevant parts of the record.” RAP 10.3(a)(6). The rules also require
“[r]eference to the record . . . for each factual statement.” RAP 10.3(a)(5). In addition,
an appellant must provide a sufficient record to review the issues raised on appeal.
RAP 9.2(b). “An insufficient appellate record precludes review of the alleged errors.”
Stiles v. Kearney, 168 Wn. App. 250, 259, 277 P.3d 9 (2012).
Without a report of proceedings, this court can only speculate as to the reasons
behind the trial court’s distribution of real property. See Sunderland Fam. Treatment
Servs. v. City of Pasco, 107 Wn. App. 109, 116, 26 P.3d 955 (2001). It could be the
trial court rejected the June 2017 separation agreement as “unfair at the time of its
execution” as contemplated by RCW 26.09.070(3). Or maybe the court found the
agreement had been terminated pursuant to RCW 26.09.070(8). An additional possibility
is that the trial court found the agreement did not constitute a separation contract as
contemplated by statute. Without a report of proceedings, we are unable to analyze the
basis for the trial court’s decision. The matter must therefore be affirmed.

No. 39159-1-III
In re Marriage of McCoy
5
CONCLUSION
The final divorce order is affirmed. As the prevailing party, Dennis McCoy is
entitled to costs as set forth in RAP 14.3(a), subject to compliance with RAP 14.4.
See RAP 14.1, 14.2. 3
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.
_________________________________
Pennell, J.
WE CONCUR:
______________________________ 	_________________________________
Staab, A.C.J. 	Cooney, J.
3 In her response brief, Dennis McCoy requests enforcement of outstanding
child support. This issue is not properly before our court. The final child support
order was not appended to Marty McCoy’s notice of appeal, the equity amount of
real property was the only part of the appended final divorce order designated for
review, and Dennis McCoy did not file a notice of cross-appeal on any further issues.
See RAP 5.1(d), 5.2(f).