Divorce

Washington Dissipation of Community Funds

July 12, 2023 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Property in a Washington divorce is generally characterized as of the date was acquired, but the date of acquisition alone does not determine its character. The court must consider whether the property was acquired by community or separate funds. Additionally, spouses may agree to convert property that otherwise would have been separate property. A husband recently challenged a trial court’s characterization of certain assets and expenditures.

Marriage

The appeals court’s unpublished opinion states the parties got married in 2004 in Arizona. Several years later, they signed a family trust agreement stating any property put in the trust would be community property. They bought a home in Washington in the name of the trust and moved into it in 2009. They subsequently rented that home out when they purchased another home, using funds from the trust for the down payment. The husband placed $820,000 he received from an arbitration related to his shares in his former employer in the trust’s bank account. The parties funded a new business from the trust. The business was successful, but closed in 2020 when its supplier went out of business.

The wife and child moved out in 2017 and the husband filed for divorce.

Washington Appeals Court Upholds Deviation from Standard Child Support Calculation

May 23, 2023 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Washington child support is determined based on the Washington State Child Support Schedule. A trial court may deviate from the standard child support calculation when it would be inequitable not to do so. The trial court must specify its reasons for deviation or for denying a request for deviation in its findings of fact. RCW 26.19.075 sets forth a non-exclusive list of reasons for deviation. A husband recently challenged a child support deviation, arguing the trial court should instead have characterized that amount as spousal maintenance.

According to the appeals court’s opinion, the parties had three children together during their fourteen-year marriage. The trial court found the wife was voluntarily underemployed and imputed a monthly net income of $2,048 to her, but she actually earned about $800 from her part-time job. The husband had a net monthly income of $7,374.

The trial court determined the wife needed $3017.27 per month for her basic needs and expenses. The court determined she would receive that amount in combined spousal and child support. Pursuant to the child support guidelines, the husband’s adjusted child support would be $1,566. The trial court acknowledged that spousal maintenance would change the income of the parties for determining child support. To get to the intended total, the trial court adjusted the child support amount and ordered the husband to pay $2,017.27 in monthly child support and $1,000 in monthly spousal maintenance for a year. The court indicated child support would be recalculated based on the parties’ income without spousal support after the spousal support ended in a year.

Washington Appeals Court Upholds 54-Month Spousal Maintenance Award

April 25, 2023 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Washington spousal maintenance is intended to support a spouse until they are able to support themselves. The trial court’s primary consideration is the economic situations of the parties after the divorce. Courts must consider the factors set forth in RCW, but those factors are not exclusive. The factors include the financial resources of the spouse seeking maintenance, the time needed for the spouse to obtain sufficient education to find appropriate employment, the standard of living during the marriage, the length of the marriage, the age, physical condition, and financial obligations of the spouse seeking maintenance, the ability of the other spouse to meet their own needs and financial obligations in addition to those of the spouse seeking maintenance. The trial court does not have to make specific findings of fact for each of the factors. A maintenance award must be just, and a court abuses its discretion if it does not base maintenance on a fair consideration of the factors. A wife recently challenged an award of spousal maintenance, arguing the trial court abused its discretion.

According to the appeals court’s unpublished opinion, the parties each finished college with a bachelor’s degree in 1992 and got married in 1994. They moved several times and lived in multiple states before and after the marriage. They agreed the wife would stay home and care for the children, but she did teach fitness classes when she could get childcare.

The wife started experiencing health issues shortly after they moved to Arizona in 2000 or 2001, affecting her ability to work. They moved to Washington in 2006 or 2007. She eventually started teaching yoga and Pilates. She started a business offering yoga classes, massage, and certain merchandise in 2010. She cut back on teaching after having what she believed was a Transient Ischemic Attack, though she was not formally diagnosed. She closed the business center at the end of 2017 as the result of a rent increase. She was in three car accidents in the following two years, causing her constant back and hip pain, issues with balance, shoulder pain, and PTSD.

Washington Father to Pay Standard Child Support Despite Providing Child Care

March 16, 2023 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

When a court enters a Washington child support order, it begins by determining the standard calculation according to RCW 26.19.020. The standard calculation is the presumptive amount owed. The court then allocates the child support between the parent’s based on their respective share of the combined monthly net income. The trial court may deviate from the standard calculation based on various factors, including income, expenses and debt, and the residential schedule. In a recent case, a father challenged a court order, arguing the trial court abused its discretion in denying his request for deviation.

The mother had been a stay-at-home mother during the marriage but got a job after the separation. The father’s gross monthly income was about $9,353.37 and the mother’s was about $3,120.

The mother petitioned for divorce. The parties subsequently signed a CR 2A agreement including a parenting plan that gave the parents equal residential time. The father would be responsible for childcare while the mother was at work during her residential time. Remaining issues would be decided by trial by affidavit.

Washington Spousal Maintenance Modification

February 19, 2023 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

An award of spousal maintenance in Washington may generally only be modified if the party seeking modification can show a substantial change of circumstances. RCW 26.09.170(1). Under Washington case law, the change must not have been within the parties’ contemplation when the decree was entered. A former wife recently challenged a trial court’s denial of modification of her spousal maintenance.

According to the appeals court’s unpublished opinion, the parties entered into a separation agreement that required the husband to pay $4,000 per month and 40% of his annual bonus as spousal maintenance for seven years, starting February 1, 2014. The terms of the agreement were incorporated into a decree of legal separation, which was ultimately converted into a decree of dissolution.

By the terms of the agreement, the payments would end in January 2021. The ex-wife moved to modify the decree in December 2020. She alleged health issues had prevented her from working in her profession as an art teacher since spring of 2019. She also alleged the ex-husband’s salary had substantially increased since the separation.

Washington Court Denies Annulment

January 9, 2023 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

A trial court must grant an annulment to parties married outside Washington if the court finds the marriage was void or voidable pursuant to the laws where the marriage was contracted, unless it was subsequently validated. RCW 26.09.040(4)(c). A wife recently appealed a court’s denial of her petition for a Washington annulment.

According to the appeals court’s unpublished opinion, the parties had a ceremonial marriage in India in 2009 and subsequently moved to the U.S and lived together as spouses for several years. They had a child together in 2014. The husband moved out in 2017 and the wife petitioned for legal separation. She subsequently amended to petition for annulment. She alleged the husband had fraudulently represented having registered their marriage in Indian, and that, because he had actually failed to register, the marriage was legally void. The husband asked the court to dissolve the marriage instead.

The primary issue at trial was whether the marriage certificate was signed and registered pursuant to Indian law. The wife offered evidence of irregularities in the certificate the husband used in his immigration. She presented an authenticated document from India stating there was no record of the marriage. The husband presented a partially-signed marriage certificate. The wife argued it was probably forged. The husband also submitted a fully-signed version of the marriage certificate with his supplemental briefing. The trial court denied the wife’s motion to strike it.

Washington Appeals Court Applies ADR Provision to Enforcement Action in Divorce

December 12, 2022 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Parties to a Washington divorce may reach an agreement to resolve the issues in their case. A CR 2A agreement, named after Washington Superior Court Civil Rule 2A, can resolve a number of issues, including property distribution and debt allocation. CR 2A agreements may also include an alternative dispute resolution requirement.

A husband recently appealed an enforcement order, arguing the matter should have been resolved through the alternative dispute process set forth in the CR 2A agreement. According to the appeals court’s opinion, the parties got married in 1991. They separated in 2017 and the husband filed for divorce at the end of 2018. The marital estate was worth about $194 million. The parties entered into a CR 2A Agreement and Separation Contract that allocated some property and made financial management arrangements in August of 2019.

The agreement allocated a development project to the husband and allowed him to borrow up to $3 million from the wife with 6% interest. She could choose to either invest the loan into the project or make the loan part of the equalizing payment. If she chose not to invest in the project, the agreement required the husband to pay the equalizing payment with 7.5% interest from the date she notified him of that decision. The payment would be due within 12 months of entry of the divorce decree. If the payment was not paid timely, it would accrue 12% per annum interest.

Washington Appeals Court Upholds Divorce of Foreign Nationals

July 21, 2022 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Courts must have jurisdiction over the cases they hear. A husband recently challenged the jurisdiction of the Washington court that dissolved his marriage. To petition for divorce in Washington, the petitioner or their spouse must be a resident of Washington. RCW 26.09.030. Washington courts have held that this means a party must be domiciled in Washington.

The wife was a Polish citizen and the husband was a Swiss citizen. They got married in Switzerland in 2012 and then moved with their children to Washington in 2014. They both worked in Washington and enrolled their children in local schools and activities.

The parties separated in October of 2018 and the wife filed for divorce the following April. The husband argued the court did not have jurisdiction over the divorce because he and the children were not domiciled in Washington. The wife testified that the husband’s job was a permanent position and they had no solid plans to go back to Switzerland. She said she considered the move to Washington to be “a new beginning.” She said she intended to remain in Washington permanently with the children, her fiancé, and her new baby.

Modification of Washington Spousal Maintenance after Remarriage

June 6, 2022 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Washington spousal maintenance generally ends if the spouse receiving then maintenance remarries. In some cases, however, the parties may agree or the divorce decree may provide that maintenance continue beyond remarriage. In a recent unpublished case, a former husband challenged a court order that maintenance continue even after his wife’s remarriage.

The parties’ divorce was finalized in 2018. The decree provided that the husband would pay the wife spousal maintenance for 10 years. The maintenance provision was on a mandatory pattern form used between 2016 and 2019. Under the termination section, it stated that maintenance would end on the death of either spouse or the remarriage or registration of a new domestic partnership of the spouse receiving maintenance unless a different date or event was stated below. Directly below, it stated, “The husband shall pay maintenance for 10 years.”

The wife had been a stay-at-home mother during her marriage to the husband and was not currently employed. The husband earned about $140,000. The wife married someone earning approximately $215,000 per year in 2019.

Joint Title Gift Presumption Not Applicable to Washington Property Characterization

April 8, 2022 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Inherited property is generally characterized as separate property in a Washington divorce, but what if the spouse signs a quitclaim deed adding the other spouse to the title? The Washington Supreme Court has clarified that the joint title gift presumption does not apply when a court divides property in a divorce. The court must instead determine whether the spouse intended to convert the property to community property.

According to the opinion, the wife’s mother died the year after the parties married and left half her estate to the wife, some of which would be through future distributions. The wife inherited a 50% interest in a property in Arlington and the parties moved there.

In 2003, the parties started a horse breeding and training business. They decided to purchase property in Ford in 2005 with a loan secured by the Arlington property. The lender required the husband to be added to the Arlington property title. The wife executed a quitclaim deed conveying her interest to her husband and herself “to establish community property.” She did not remember signing the deed and said she had only done so because it was required by the loan. She claimed they only intended to keep the loan until they could sell the Arlington property. She testified she did not intend to convert it to community property.