Divorce

Characterization of Property Acquired During Marriage with Traceable Funds in Washington Divorce Case

November 11, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

The court in a Washington divorce case has broad discretion in characterizing the parties’ assets. Characterization is determined as of the date of acquisition and generally does not change. Separate property continues to be separate while it can be traced or identified. Property acquired during the marriage may be separate property if it was acquired with the traceable proceeds of a spouse’s separate property. There is, however, a presumption that property acquired while the parties are married is community property. A spouse claiming that property acquired during the marriage is separate has the burden of showing it is separate through clear and convincing evidence. In a recent unpublished case, a former wife challenged the characterization of property purchased during the marriage.

Before the parties got married in 1999, they signed a prenuptial agreement stating the husband would maintain ownership of the property he had at the time of the marriage. He owned property in Montana before the marriage.

The parties divorced in 2002. The court awarded the husband the property he owned when they got married in accordance with the prenuptial agreement.

Washington Appeals Court Affirms Spousal Maintenance Award to Former Husband

July 11, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

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In a recent unpublished case, a former wife appealed an order awarding the husband spousal maintenance after he alleged he was medically unable to work.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.

Washington Appeals Court Affirms Divorce Despite Allegations Documents Were Misrepresented

June 29, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

In some Washington divorce cases, one party may have advantages over the other. In a recent case, a former husband sought to vacate the divorce order, arguing the wife had misrepresented the documents he signed.

According to the appeals court’s opinion, the husband’s father was American and his mother was Vietnamese. Although he spoke “conversational English,” the husband could not read or write in English beyond his name.

The husband signed a quitclaim deed in August 2023 transferring the parties’ house to the wife with no consideration.

Washington Court Denies Waste Claim and Spousal Maintenance after Long-Term Marriage

April 18, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

The court in a Washington divorce case must make a just and equitable division of the marital estate, considering certain statutory factors. Those factors include the nature and extent of community property and separate property, the length of the marriage, and the economic circumstances of each party when the property division becomes effective. RCW 26.09.080. A former wife recently appealed the property division in her divorce.

According to the appeals court opinion, the parties married in 1978 and separated in 2014. The wife was a teacher, but became a stay-at-home parent after the parties’ children were born. She returned to work after 10 years. When the parties separated, she was working full-time as a school counselor, earning about $59,600 per year. By trial, she had voluntarily gone part-time.

The husband was also a teacher for most of the marriage, but had been a principal for the last four years. He earned $95,972 per year at the time of trial. He also earned money fishing in Alaska in the summers, averaging a net profit of $62,372.

Division of Property Owned with a Third Party in a Washington Divorce

January 12, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Property division can be complicated when the parties to a Washington divorce co-own property with a third party. In a recent case, a wife appealed a property division that did not consider the mortgage on the wife’s brother’s share of the property in the valuation.

The husband petitioned for divorce in 2019. According to the opinion of the appeals court, the parties purchased a piece of property with the wife’s brother during the marriage. The parties paid cash for their 50% interest, while the wife’s brother took out a mortgage.

At trial, the husband testified he did not think there was any debt on the wife’s interest in the property. The wife’s brother testified he paid for his share of the property with a mortgage, but testified if he were to default, “it’s her responsibility.”

Washington Court Finds House Purchased a Month Before Marriage Remained Separate Property

December 15, 2024 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Characterization of property as separate or community in a Washington divorce case is determined at the date the property was acquired. An increase in separate property’s value is presumed to also be separate property. Separate property remains separate unless there is clear and convincing evidence showing it was converted to community property. Generally, a written acknowledgement is required to rebut the separate property presumption for real property. In a recent unpublished case, a Washington appeals court considered whether a trial court erred in characterizing equity in separate real property as community property.

A month before the marriage, the wife purchased a home for $207,000 with a $40,000 down payment. The parties got married in September 2016 and their son was born the same day. The wife generally stayed home caring for the child.

The husband petitioned for divorce in June 2022. The parties separated at the end of June. They agreed the marital home, which was the one purchased by the wife before the marriage, was worth $402,000. They also agreed it was the wife’s separate property, but the husband claimed he had an “equitable interest” in the property and asked the equity, less the wife’s down payment, be divided equally.

Washington Appeals Court Upholds Community Property Characterization of House Purchased Before Marriage

November 29, 2024 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

In many Washington divorce cases, characterization of property as separate or community can be a contentious issue. A property’s character is determined when it is acquired. Property that is established to be separate is presumed to remain separate unless there is sufficient evidence to show the intent to convert it to community property. Separate property can only be changed to community property if there is clear and convincing evidence of the spouse’s intent to convert it. Intent to convert property can be shown through a quitclaim deed, but there is not a presumption that a change in title from one spouse to both spouses converts property to community property. If a quitclaim deed has a stated purpose of establishing community property, the court can consider extrinsic evidence in determining intent. A husband recently challenged a court’s characterization of a house he bought before the marriage as community property.

According to the appeals court’s unpublished opinion, the husband had purchased the home while he was single. He refinanced it during his first marriage and signed a quitclaim deed to himself and his first wife. He divorced his first wife in 2010 and he agreed during the divorce that the house was community property. He refinanced the house to remove his first wife’s name and pay her share of the community property as part of the divorce settlement.

The Trial

The parties got married in 2011. Both had been married before and had children and separate assets. Three of their six bank accounts were joint. Additionally, they had a joint investment account. The husband testified he used the parties’ paychecks and the wife’s child support payments to pay the family’s debts. He said they combined and commingled their accounts early in the marriage.

Limitations in Washington Parenting Plan upon Finding of History of Domestic Violence

October 8, 2024 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

When a court makes a finding there was a history of domestic violence in a Washington custody case, it must impose limitations on the decision-making authority and in most cases the residential time of the parent who committed the domestic violence. A mother recently challenged a parenting plan based on a lack of limitations on the father in light of the court’s finding of a history of domestic violence.

The parties got married in 2019 and had a son about a year later. The mother alleged the father was abusive toward her during the relationship. According to the appeals court’s unpublished opinion, the father told the mother to “. . .get out” following an argument in June 2021. The mother then moved with the child to live with her parents in New Mexico. The father filed for divorce.

The court entered temporary orders allowing the father to have two monthly visits with the child, 25% of which were to occur in Washington. He only actually had about a visit every other month due to the expense and work conflicts.

Washington Supreme Court Holds Financial Need Not a Prerequisite to Spousal Maintenance Award

August 13, 2024 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

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.

Washington Appeals Court Reverses Denial of DVPO

July 9, 2024 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

A wife recently appealed a trial court’s decision not to grant a domestic violence protection order (“DVPO”) in a divorce proceeding. She argued that RCW 7.105.225(1)(a) required the court to issue the DVPO after a finding of domestic violence and that the court incorrectly interpreted the statute to require it to perform a risk analysis after it found domestic violence had occurred. She also argued the court erred in denying the DVPO for reasons that were expressly prohibited in the statute.

RCW 7.105.225(1) states “the court shall issue a protection order” if the petitioner proves the statutory requirements by a preponderance of the evidence. To obtain a DVPO, the petitioner must prove they were “subjected to domestic violence by the respondent.” The statute further sets forth grounds for which the court may not deny or dismiss the petition for a protection order, including: either party being a minor, unless relief or remedies are specifically limited elsewhere in Chapter 7.105 based on a party’s age; the petitioner’s failure to report the conduct to law enforcement; a no-contact order or restraining order having been issued in a criminal or domestic relations proceeding; the petitioner’s ability to obtain relief in another action or proceeding; pending criminal charges against the respondent; the time since the last incident; or the respondent not living near the petitioner. RCW 7.105.225(2).

In this case, the court found the wife had been subjected to domestic violence by the husband. The court concluded the statute suggested the court is then to conduct a risk analysis to determine whether to grant the DVPO. The trial court then concluded that the statute allowed it to deny the DVPO because of the combined reasons of the passage of time since the incident occurred and the husband no longer living near the wife.