Seattle Attorneys Blog
Washington spousal maintenance is intended to equalize the parties’ standard of living for an appropriate period. Pursuant to RCW 26.09.090, a court may order spousal maintenance in an amount and for the period it deems just after it has considered all relevant factors, including: the financial resources of the requesting spouse and their ability to meet their needs independently; the time they need to acquire sufficient education or training to obtain appropriate employment; the standard of living established while the parties were married; the marriage’s duration; the age, condition, and financial obligation of the spouse seeking maintenance; and the ability of the other spouse to meet their own needs and financial obligations while meeting those of the spouse seeking maintenance. A court abuses its discretion if it awards maintenance that is not based on a fair consideration of these factors.
Divorce Case
A former husband recently challenged a spousal maintenance award in the Supreme Court of Washington. The parties had been married for more than 20 years when they separated in 2015. The husband had a bachelor’s degree. The wife had graduated high school and attended a year of college, but had not earned a degree. They bought a home during the marriage and it was paid off before the divorce was finalized. According to the Washington Supreme Court, they had “a secure, middle-class lifestyle” during the marriage.
After the wife lost her job during her second pregnancy in 1997, the parties agreed she would not go back to work and would be a stay-at-home parent. She went back to work part-time in 2004 and worked only part time until 2007. Her highest net annual income during that period was $10,485 in 2007. She worked as a receptionist at a dental office from 2009 until she was terminated in 2017, earning an average of $30,000 for much of that time. In October 2020, she was working in a call center. According to her October 2021 financial declaration, she made $2840 each month with expenses totaling $2,719.
The court noted the wife was bilingual, but had not tried to leverage those skills to obtain employment while the divorce case was pending.
From 1994 to 2008, the husband earned about $75,000 annually as a production manager. The parties purchased a business in 2008, financing it it with a $300,000 loan from the husband’s mother and $100,000 from the seller. As of January 2019, they still owed the husband’s mother $250,000 at 5% interest.
The business struggled for the first six years, but it “saw substantial gains” in 2015. It reported $158,761 in ordinary business income in 2015, $192,760 in 2016, and $167,390 in 2017. The he reported income from $34,000 to $40,000 each year. The corporation kept a large amount of the earnings. According to the opinion, the income from the company paid some of the husband’s personal expenses and about $4,000 in community expenses each year. After the separation, the business paid the wife’s spousal maintenance and the attorney’s fees and expert witness fees.
The wife petitioned for divorce in 2015. The husband paid temporary spousal maintenance and child support until the youngest child went to college.
At trial, the parties’ experts disagreed about the value of the business, with the wife’s expert appraising it at $522,000 and the husband’s expert appraising it at $335,000. The trial court awarded the business to the husband, valuing it at $500,000 with $250,000 in debt. The court awarded the wife the home and other assets. The total property awarded to the husband was valued at approximately $506,250 and the property awarded to the wife was valued at $381,166, not including any debt.
The trial court calculated the husband’s income at $40,000 per year and ordered him to pay $1,000 in monthly spousal maintenance for four years, when the wife could start receiving funds from the pension.
The Wife’s Appeal
The wife appealed. The court of appeals held the trial court erred in finding the husband’s income was $40,000 per year. The appeals court remanded and instructed the trial court to count the husband’s expenses paid by the business and the retained earnings as income. It also instructed the trial court to address the property division, expressing concern that the husband had been awarded “the only significant income-producing asset,” resulting in an increased disparity over time.
On remand, the trial court generally found the property division just and equitable, ultimately awarding husband property valued at $515,793 and $403,708 to the wife.
Based on an annual income of $156,000, the trial court ordered the husband to pay the wife monthly spousal maintenance of $4,000 for 11 years until she reached the age of 65, unless she remarried or either of the parties died before then.
The court made findings based on the factors set forth in RCW 26.09.090.
The Husband’s Appeal
The husband appealed the maintenance award, arguing the wife was only entitled to maintenance to the extent it was necessary. The appeals court affirmed, and the husband petitioned the Washington Supreme Court for review.
The husband argued maintenance is intended to support a spouse until they become self-sufficient and the spouse seeking maintenance must show they need the support. The Washington Supreme Court noted, however, that the husband relied primarily on cases decided before enactment of RCW 26.09.090.
The appeals court held a spouse seeking maintenance does not have to show a financial need, noting need is just one factor under the statute. The statute does not provide that a court may only award maintenance if the spouse seeking it demonstrates financial need. The appeals court concluded the trial court had not abused its discretion because it had considered all of the statutory factors.
The Supreme Court of Washington agreed with the appeals court. Prior to the enactment of RCW 26.09.090, a spouse did have to show financial need to receive an alimony award. The Washington Supreme Court clarified, however, that under RCW 26.09.090, “establishing need is not a prerequisite to a maintenance award.”
The Washington Supreme Court held that the financial need of the requesting spouse must be considered among the factors, but is not a prerequisite for awarding maintenance.
The husband also argued that large maintenance awards are only appropriate when there are “special circumstances.” The Supreme Court rejected this argument, clarifying that spousal maintenance awards depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. The wife had stayed home to perform childcare duties and had only worked part-time for almost half of the marriage. When they bought the business, her income increased. The Washington Supreme Court noted this suggested the wife was working to help support the family while the business was initially struggling. The trial court found the wife’s earning potential was not likely to increase substantially based on her age and experience. The business and the husband’s income increased significantly soon after the separation. The trial court also found the husband would likely work for another 15 to 20 years and had been awarded the only significant income-producing asset. The Supreme Court stated the trial court had ordered an equalization payment of $4,000 per month to the wife based partly on the disparate earning power and the substantial growth of the business. Furthermore, the trial court had fairly considered all of the statutory factors and the circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court held the trial court had not abused its discretion.
The Supreme Court also rejected the husband’s argument that the wife had received all of the assets other than the business, pointing out the business was worth more than all of the assets awarded to the wife combined. Without the supplemental maintenance award, she would be in a significantly worse financial situation than the husband and that disparity would increase over time.
The husband also argued that awarding the wife enough maintenance that she could quit her job and still have more than enough for her expenses was “bad policy.” The Supreme Court rejected the argument, noting that a spouse is not automatically precluded from receiving maintenance because they can support themselves.
The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the appeals court’s decision.
Call Blair & Kim, PLLC
If you are facing divorce, an experienced Washington family law attorney can review the facts of your case and advise you regarding the potential for spousal maintenance. Set up an appointment with Blair & Kim, PLLC, by calling (206) 622-6562.