A Washington couple divorced in 2021, remarried in 2022 and split again eight months later; a November 3 court upheld a property deal that left the wife without bank and stock assets awarded in their first divorce

Representative Image (AI-generated)

A divorce settlement can settle who owns an asset on paper, but what happens when a couple gets back together and later separates again? A Washington woman faced this situation after remarrying her former husband and separating again approximately eight months later. Although their first divorce settlement had awarded her half of several bank accounts and stock assets, most remained in her former husband’s name. When they divorced again, a new property agreement and arbitration decision left her without those assets.In an unpublished opinion dated November 3, 2026, the Washington Court of Appeals, Division II, upheld the lower court’s decision in In the Matter of the Marriage of William Gibbs and Joy Ann Gibbs, case number 60590-2-II. The ruling, available on Justia, affirmed an arbitration award favouring William Gibbs and rejected Joy Gibbs’ attempt to challenge the decision through a request for a new trial. The court also awarded William reasonable attorney fees for the appeal.

The first divorce divided their property

William and Joy Gibbs married in 1998 and divorced in 2021. During their first divorce, they reached a mediated settlement that divided their assets into separate property. Under the agreement, Joy received half of several assets, including a BNY Mellon 401(k), joint USAA savings and checking accounts, restricted stock units (RSUs), their ownership interest in Conner’s Pretzel and Wine company, and their wine collection. William retained an E-Trade Rollover IRA held in his name. However, although Joy was awarded half of these assets, most remained registered under William’s name. She successfully transferred half of the BNY Mellon 401(k) into her own name, but the other assets were not similarly transferred.The couple remarried in November 2022, but their second marriage lasted approximately eight to nine months. During the subsequent divorce proceedings, Joy sought to enforce the original 2021 decree. The superior court partly granted her request, enforcing the earlier division for the period between their first divorce and remarriage. However, it left questions about the assets after their remarriage unresolved, stating that issues involving the tracing and possible mixing of separate property needed further examination.

A second agreement changed the arrangement

William and Joy subsequently participated in another mediation to resolve their property disputes. Joy did not personally attend, but her attorney and her father, who acted as her power of attorney, represented her. The mediation resulted in a CR 2A agreement, which established how their property would be divided. It stated that the marital home would be divided equally, while each party would retain all other assets and debts held in their respective names.Importantly, the agreement also stated that it superseded the 2021 divorce decree and that all orders under the earlier decree were considered satisfied. It further prohibited either party from starting enforcement proceedings relating to that decree.The agreement required disagreements concerning the preparation of final orders to be resolved through binding arbitration. When William and Joy could not agree on how to implement its terms, the dispute went to an arbitrator.

Arbitration awarded the accounts and stock to William

The arbitrator interpreted the second agreement to mean that each party would retain assets held in their respective names, unless they had agreed otherwise. As a result, Joy received the half of the BNY Mellon 401(k) that she had already transferred into her name. However, she did not receive half of the USAA accounts or the restricted stock units awarded to her in the first divorce because those assets remained registered under William’s name. The arbitrator awarded the accounts and stock units to William.There were some exceptions. The couple agreed to divide their ownership interests in three companies, including Conner’s Pretzel and Wine, equally. Their wine collection was also divided equally because it was not registered under either person’s name. Joy challenged the decision and sought reconsideration, but the arbitrator rejected her request. She then approached the superior court, seeking a new trial under a rule that had already been repealed.

Court rejected her request for a new trial

Joy filed her request under Superior Court Mandatory Arbitration Rules (MAR) 7.1. However, the rules had been repealed in 2019 and replaced by the Superior Court Civil Arbitration Rules. The superior court rejected her request and confirmed the arbitration award. During the hearing, the possibility of filing a motion to vacate the arbitration award was discussed, but Joy’s lawyer did not formally submit such a motion or ask the court to treat the existing request as one.On appeal, Joy argued that her request should have been treated as a motion to vacate because she was challenging the arbitrator’s failure to recognise her ownership rights under the first divorce decree. She maintained that her half of the USAA accounts and RSUs had already become vested and should not have been taken away through the second agreement.The appeals court disagreed, finding that her original filing was too limited to be interpreted as a proper motion to vacate. It did not explain the legal grounds for setting aside the arbitration award or establish that the arbitrator had exceeded their authority. The court also noted that her lawyer had an opportunity to correct the procedural issue but did not do so.

Appeals court upheld the arbitration award

The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court’s decision and awarded William reasonable attorney fees for the appeal under the second agreement. The court did not decide the underlying question of whether Joy’s ownership rights under the first divorce decree had been legally extinguished. Instead, it declined to consider those arguments because they had not been properly raised before the superior court.As a result, the arbitration award remained in place, leaving the USAA accounts and restricted stock units with William.