In re the Marriage of Katare

¶39 (concurring) — I substantially concur with the majority. However, I respectfully disagree with its conclusion that Brajesh Katare’s conduct has not crossed the line to intransigence. Because I conclude it has crossed that line, I would grant Lynette Katare’s request for attorney fees. See In re Marriage of Greenlee, 65 Wn. App. 703, 708, 829 P.2d 1120 (1992) (citing Eide v. Eide, 1 Wn. App. 440, 445, 462 P.2d 562 (1969)).

¶40 Like something out of a Charles Dickens novel, this case has dragged on for years and years. We are currently hearing the third appeal. In the first appeal, the Court…