Spousal maintenance can be a contentious issue in some Washington divorces. In Washington, a court may order spousal maintenance in a divorce case in the amount and for the amount of time “as the court deems just,” after it considers the relevant factors. RCW 26.09.090 sets forth a non-exhaustive list of factors, including the financial of the party who is requesting maintenance; how long it would take them to obtain education or training to find appropriate employment; their standard of living while married; the length of the marriage; their physical and emotional condition, age, and financial obligations; and the other party’s ability to meet their own financial obligations.
In a recent unpublished case, a former wife appealed an order awarding the husband spousal maintenance after he alleged he was medically unable to work. The parties got married in September 2015 and the wife filed for divorce in July 2022. They settled the property division, so only the parenting plan and spousal maintenance were at issue at trial.
The husband testified he was unable to work due to an injury in 2019, so his only income was about $2,700 annually from his farm. The funds from the settlement for his accident had all gone toward expenses and legal fees.
The wife testified she had seen the husband work long hours on the farm doing physical labor, as well as spending up to 14 hours a day at the computer. She testified he had earned about $65,000 per year as a truck driver before the accident. She testified she had been ordered to pay $1,000 in monthly spousal support for three months, but was not able to meet her own expenses or make the minimum payments on her credit cards.
The trial court granted the dissolution petition and divided the property according to the parties’ agreement. The court also found the husband had “not been medically released to work” and that spousal support should be ordered. The court awarded him $1,000 per month and ordered it would continue while he was unable to work unless there was a change in circumstances. It required him to update his doctor’s notice regularly and provide proof within five days of receiving notice of any disability benefit determination. The order provided that a petition could be filed to change maintenance if he was released to work.
The wife appealed the spousal support award, arguing the court erred in finding the husband was unable to work.
Hearsay
She argued his testimony that he could not work was hearsay that should not have been admitted into evidence. The wife had objected to the testimony at trial, but the court overruled the objection.
The appeals court also rejected hearsay argument. The court concluded the husband’s testimony was based on his personal knowledge. He had not testified about any statement made by a medical provider. He had personal knowledge of his work status and any restrictions placed on his return to work by his medical providers.
The appeals court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court overruling the wife’s objection and considering the husband’s testimony. The appeals court further determined that any error would have been harmless. The husband had also testified about his injury, that he had not been employed after the injury, and the amount of his income. The appeals court determined his testimony and resulting inferences supported the court’s findings regarding maintenance.
Statutory Factors
The wife also argued the court abused its discretion by failing to consider the factors set forth in RCW 26.09.090. The appeals court determined, however, that the court’s findings and award indicated it had considered the relevant factors. A court does not have to make a specific finding for each factor. The trial court made findings regarding the husband’s need for maintenance and the wife’s ability to pay, showing it had considered the husband’s financial resources and the wife’s ability to meet her own needs. The court also made findings about the husband being medically unable to work, showing it had considered his physical condition. It also made findings regarding the dates the marriage began and ended, showing it considered the length of the marriage. The appeals court also noted that the parties testified about their lifestyles both before and after they separated. The appeals court concluded the wife had not shown the court failed to consider the relevant factors.
Duration of Spousal Support
The wife also argued the court erred because it did not order an end for the spousal support. She argued the award should be treated as a permanent award because it could continue indefinitely if there was never a change in circumstances. The appeals court noted, however, that the award was conditioned on the husband’s inability to work and required him to regularly provide proof of his work status.
The appeals court also pointed out that the wife did not provide any authority that the length of the marriage determines the terms of spousal maintenance. The trial court’s discretion in awarding spousal support was limited only be the requirement that it be just in light of the statutory factors. RCW 26.09.090.
The court required the husband to provide proof of his medical inability to work every three months. The appeals court concluded this requirement indicated the court did not intend for the maintenance award to be permanent or continue indefinitely if the husband did not fully recover. The appeals court concluded the trial court did not intend to make a permanent maintenance award and therefore erred by not specifying an end date.
The appeals court affirmed the spousal maintenance award, except it remanded to the trial court with instructions to specify an end date for the maintenance award. The appeals court also denied the husband’s request for attorney’s fees.
Call a Skilled Seattle Family Law Attorney
If your marriage is ending and there is a significant difference in income or earning capacity, a knowledgeable Washington divorce lawyer can advice you regarding spousal maintenance. Call Blair & Kim, PLLC at (206) 622-6562 to set up a consultation.