Divorce

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According to the appeals court’s unpublished opinion, the parties entered into a separation agreement that required the husband to pay $4,000 per month and 40% of his annual bonus as spousal maintenance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.

Community Expenses Paid with Separate Assets in Washington Divorce

March 8, 2022 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

In a Washington divorce, inheritance will generally be considered separate property. What happens, though, when a spouse uses separate property to pay off the debt on a community asset? A Washington appeals court recently considered this issue.

According to the unpublished opinion, the wife bought a home in California while the parties were dating. The husband moved in with her a couple of months later. After they married in 2002, they formed a trust with the two of them as co-trustees. The trust stated that all property held in joint tenancy was their community property. The wife signed a quitclaim deed conveying the house to the two of them as trustees as community property. In 2013, they executed another quitclaim deed as trustees, this time transferring the property to the two of them as spouses “as joint tenants with rights of survivorship.”

They lived in the house together for 14 years and refinanced it at least three times. They both paid on the mortgage, but the wife ultimately paid it off in 2015 using funds she received from an inheritance. They sold the house in 2016. They then moved to Washington.

Washington Annulment and Fraud Involving the Essentials of Marriage

January 9, 2022 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Washington public policy favors a presumption that a marriage is valid. Case law has held that a party seeking a Washington annulment must show the marriage is invalid by “clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence.” A marriage is invalid if one party was induced to enter into it by “fraud involving the essentials of marriage” and the parties have not voluntarily cohabitated after the fraud was discovered. RCW 26.09.040.

A man recently challenged a denial of his petition to invalidate his marriage, alleging the wife had misrepresented her prior relationship with another man. The parties’ mothers were long-time friends. The husband went to Vietnam with his mother in 2015 and met the wife. He visited her again in 2016. He asked her if she had ever had any prior relationships and she said she had not. They started talking about marriage later that year. The husband applied for a K-1 visa in 2017.

When the wife got to the U.S. in August 2017, she asked the husband to get a marriage license the next day. The couple married as soon as the 3-day waiting period passed. They slept in separate bedrooms that night. According to the appeals court’s opinion, the parties were only sexually intimate once, later that month.

Washington Committed Intimate Relationship Doctrine Not Applicable to Married Parties

December 13, 2021 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Washington family law recognizes committed intimate relationships, which are stable relationships where the parties cohabit knowing that they are not lawfully married. It is an equitable doctrine, intended to protect unmarried partners who acquire property during the relationship. Before distributing property under the doctrine, the court must first determine whether there is a committed intimate relationship, based on the circumstances of the case with consideration of a number of factors. If there is a committed intimate relationship, the court must next evaluate the parties’ respective interest in the property acquired during the relationship. Then, the court must distribute the property in a just and equitable manner.

A woman recently sought relief under the committed intimate relationship doctrine for property acquired after she reunited with her husband following a legal separation. The parties legally separated in 2002, resulting in an agreed judgment and decree of legal separation in California. They got back together instead of following through with a divorce at that time. However, they still divided their assets and the father paid child support and spousal maintenance in accordance with the California order.

They stayed together for several years, but separated again in early 2020. The wife petitioned for an equitable distribution of the property acquired after the separation order under the committed intimate relationship doctrine. The husband moved to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim, arguing they were still married. The trial court ultimately dismissed the petition, finding the wife could not pursue a committed intimate partnership claim because the parties were married.