In Re the Marriage of Wright

Citations: 896 P.2d 735; 78 Wash. App. 230Docket: 15586-9-II

Court: Court of Appeals of Washington; June 21, 1995; Washington; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Lynette Wright appeals a dissolution decree, contesting the trial court's decisions on child support, property division, spousal maintenance, and attorney fees. The marriage lasted from September 1976 until separation in December 1989, resulting in five children. The trial court awarded Lynette 60% equity in the family home and a 50% interest in two retirement funds valued at $63,467, with a monthly payment plan from Kim. Lynette did not receive a $10,000 USAA account or retroactive pay from Kim. She was granted primary custody of the children, with Kim ordered to pay $1,839 monthly child support, based on his income of $4,950 and Lynette's actual income of $1,400, which included an additional $300 imputed income due to her ability to work full-time as a nurse. Lynette's request for spousal maintenance was denied, and she was awarded $2,500 in attorney fees. The court upheld the imputed income, emphasizing that voluntary under-employment does not exempt a parent from child support obligations. The trial court's property division is subject to RCW 26.09.080 and will not be reversed without evidence of manifest abuse of discretion.

Review is confined to assessing the fairness and equity of the trial court’s property distribution. Lynette Wright contests the division of marital property, specifically regarding pension plans. Pension benefits are deemed property rights akin to deferred compensation, even if not currently payable. Courts have approved various methods for allocating pension rights, including awarding the entire pension interest to one party while compensating the other with a specific sum, which the trial court employed in this case. Kim was awarded the pension, with a requirement to pay Lynette her share over time.

Lynette does not dispute the valuation or classification of the pensions as community property but argues that the payment structure prevents her from accessing funds for retirement, forcing her to use her share for current needs. She also claims this arrangement negatively impacts Kim's ability to pay child support and other obligations. However, the court finds Lynette's concerns about fund utilization irrelevant, emphasizing that the distribution's fairness cannot be questioned based on speculation about how she might use the funds. Lynette retains the freedom to invest her share for retirement benefits.

Furthermore, Lynette challenges the trial court's failure to characterize the USAA account and retroactive pay from United Airlines. Although the trial court did not characterize the USAA account, this omission is deemed insignificant, as property characterization does not dictate its distribution. The court concludes that the trial court achieved an equitable division of marital assets, as Lynette received substantial benefits, including the family home and a significant share of the equity and pension plans.

Kim was awarded 40 percent equity in the home, half of the value of pension plans, half of the home's contents, a USAA account, and retroactive pay. This division was deemed equitable, particularly because the USAA funds originated from a personal injury award, which is considered separate property. The trial court's failure to assign a value to Kim's retroactive pay was noted, but deemed not significant enough to require a reversal, as any community interest in that asset was minimal. The court's obligation is to ensure a fair division of marital property, and the distribution was not viewed as inequitable.

Lynette's request for spousal maintenance was denied based on the trial court's findings that she did not meet the criteria outlined in RCW 26.09.090. The court concluded that the property division improved her financial situation, and she had the education and training necessary for self-sufficiency, making the denial of maintenance appropriate.

Regarding attorney fees, Lynette's claim for substantial fees was rejected. Her allegations of Kim’s obstruction were considered unsubstantiated, as she failed to provide specific examples or legal support for her claims. The trial court's decision not to award attorney fees was upheld. The court also noted Kim's obligation to pay $1,000 in temporary fees and an additional $2,500 for trial fees.