On Monday, May 4, 2026, the Court of Appeals of Washington affirmed a divorce ruling that awarded a husband the community share of a cryptocurrency he said he purchased during the marriage and later lost.

The case, In the Matter of the Marriage of Toshihide Tanimura, involved Toshihide Tanimura’s petition to dissolve his marriage to Satoko Tanimura and to divide their property and debts. The trial court awarded Satoko 53% of the total community property and Toshihide 47%, including a cryptocurrency Toshihide had bought with community funds without notifying Satoko. The trial court also credited Toshihide’s testimony that he no longer had access to the asset after he lost a small physical device containing the code required to access the cryptocurrency.

At trial in January 2025, Toshihide testified that the device was left under the seat of a vehicle that later broke down, and that he forgot about the cryptocurrency access code until after the loss. Satoko argued that the court should set the cryptocurrency’s value based on its alleged market price at the time of trial, citing changes in the asset’s value over time. The trial court, however, found Toshihide’s testimony credible and was skeptical of the evidence presented by both parties regarding the cryptocurrency. It concluded that the asset should be treated as an item that Toshihide alone effectively absorbed as a loss, and it valued the cryptocurrency at the purchase price of $43,000, describing it as “Crypto Investment (lost).”

On appeal, Satoko contended the court erred by valuing the cryptocurrency at its original $43,000 purchase price rather than at its market value at trial. She also argued that the court improperly considered evidence tied to the parties’ separation date. The appellate court said the central question was the valuation standard for disposing of the cryptocurrency under Washington’s community property statute, RCW 26.09.080.

The Court of Appeals held that property valuation in divorce proceedings is reviewed as a factual matter and must be supported by “substantial evidence.” Applying that deferential standard, the court found the trial court had made credibility determinations that it would not disturb. It cited findings that Toshihide was sincere and credible about the cryptocurrency being lost, and that Satoko’s testimony about the vehicle also partially corroborated his account.

The appellate court further concluded the record supported the trial court’s decision that the parties did not provide reliable proof of the cryptocurrency’s value as of the separation date. It noted testimony and exhibits showing volatile market fluctuations, along with a lack of credible valuation evidence tied to the relevant dates. The panel said the trial court also had undisputed evidence that Toshihide used $43,000 of community funds to purchase the cryptocurrency.

The Court of Appeals rejected Satoko’s additional arguments, including assertions that the trial court was required to treat the cryptocurrency’s value as of trial and claims that the trial court had awarded the cryptocurrency as separate property. Finding no reversible error, it affirmed the divorce judgment.

Please contact BlockTribune for access to a copy of this filing.