Property divisions and child custody in a Washington divorce can be contentious. In a recent case, the former husband requested supplemental findings after the wife appealed the property division and residential schedule. The appeals court vacated the supplemental findings and determined the trial court had erred by awarding property that, based on the evidence, did not belong to either party.
According to the appeals court, the parties had an arranged marriage in Cambodia in 2004 and subsequently got married in Washington. They had three children together. The wife filed for divorce in 2021.
The court adopted the husband’s proposed property division. It found the parties had a house in Washington valued at $720,000 with a $224,928 mortgage. The court ordered the house be sold to pay any outstanding community debt, with the parties equally sharing any additional proceeds. The court also found the parties had a house in Cambodia, which it awarded to the wife, valued at $115,000.
The husband received a gross total of $533,449 and the wife $421,996. The court ordered the husband to pay the wife an equalization payment of $55,727 so that each would have a final community property award of $477,423.
The trial court ordered a 50/50 residential schedule without any RCW 26.09.191 restrictions. According to the standard calculation, the husband would pay $1,917 per month to the wife in child support. The court, however, ordered the husband to pay $503 in monthly child support based on the time the children spent with their father.
The court denied the wife’s motion for reconsideration, but granted the husband’s motion. It amended the child support order after determining it had based its calculations on incorrect income amounts. The court found the husband had a monthly income of $9,048 and the wife $2,995, resulting in a standard calculation of $2,067. The court ordered the husband to pay $642 in monthly child support.
Supplemental Findings
The wife appealed. The husband moved for a stay to allow him to seek supplemental findings from the trial court pursuant to CR 60(a). The wife argued there were no clerical errors at issue in the appeal, so additional findings would not be permitted under CR 60(a). The commissioner granted the motion.
The trial court entered supplemental findings. The trial court found its property distribution would not have been different and still would have been “just and equitable,” even if it “mischaracterized” the Cambodian house. The court considered the length of the marriage, the nature and extent of the parties’ other property, and their economic circumstances. It also found that even if the Cambodian house could not be distributed, “spousal maintenance would not be just.”
Stating it had previously considered the RCW 26.09.187(3) factors in determining the residential schedule, it made fact findings for each factor.
The wife also challenged the supplemental findings, arguing the court did not have the authority under CR 60(a) to enter them.
CR 60(a) provides that a court may correct “[c]lerical mistakes” at any time before review is granted by an appeals correct or pursuant to RAP 7.2(e) thereafter. CR 60(a) permits the correction of clerical errors, but not judicial errors.
The appeals court concluded the supplemental findings exceeded the court’s analysis in the original orders. The appeals court determined the supplemental findings tried to correct substantive, and not clerical, errors. The court performed a legal analysis related to the residential schedule that had not been previously performed and was not documented in the record. The appeals court noted “the court effectively conceded it erred” with its supplemental findings related to the house in Cambodia and “redistributed the property without [it].”
The appeals court vacated the supplemental findings.
Residential Schedule
The wife argued the trial court’s failure to consider RCW 26.09.187(3) in determining the residential schedule was an abuse of discretion.
RCW 26.09.187(3)(a) requires the court to consider the seven statutory factors in determining the residential schedule. The factors include the child’s relationship with each parent, the children’s needs and development, the parents’ performance of parenting functions, and the parent’s work schedules. The court is not required to enter specific findings for each factor if its opinion and findings show that it considered the factors. If, however, the record does not reflect consideration of the factors, the appeals court will remand.
The appeals court concluded there was no evidence that the court had considered the factors. The parenting plan did not state the court’s reasoning. The oral findings just stated the husband’s proposals were in the children’s best interest without reference to the factors.
The appeals court reversed the residential schedule and remanded the case to the trial court to make findings pursuant to RCW 26.09.187(3).
House in Cambodia
The wife also argued the trial court abused its discretion by distributing property that was not owned by either party.
The trial court awarded the house in Cambodia to the wife. Both parties testified they had given money to the wife’s mother to build a house. They also agreed the title to the house was in the wife’s mother’s name. The evidence that the parties did not own the property was undisputed. The court cannot distribute property that does not belong to either party. The trial court erred in awarding the property to the wife.
The appeals court vacated the divorce order and the findings and conclusions relating to the property distribution. It remanded to the trial court for redistribution consistent with RCW 26.09.080, with directions to the court to redistribute the assets and liabilities as required to reach a just and equitable distribution.
The appeals court also awarded the wife attorney’s fees and costs.
Seek Legal Representation
If you are facing the end of your marriage, a knowledgeable Washington family law attorney can help you protect your rights and your children. Set up a consultation with Blair & Kim, PLLC by calling (206) 622-6562.