Washington courts award spousal maintenance so the level the financial playing field between spouses after they separate.
Before setting maintenance, the court must consider the “ability” of the high-earning spouse to paymaintenance and the “need” of the lower-earning spouse for the maintenance.
Some cases are easy. If one spouse is a multimillionaire and the other spouse is unemployed, a court will very likely award spousal support.
But what happens if one spouse makes a lot of money, and the other spouse makes decent money. In other words, one spouse can pay maintenance, but the other spouse may not need support.
The Washington Supreme Court clarified this issue in a recent 2024 case, In re Wilcox. In short, need is not a prerequisite for establishing spousal maintenance, but simply one factor among other statutory factors under RCW 26.09.090 that the trial court must consider.
Here are the basic facts of Wilcox: The parties were married for more than 20 years and lived a comfortable, middle-class lifestyle. They raised 2 children, who are now adults. For most of the marriage, the wife worked part-time as a receptionist at a dental office. She typically earned about $30,000 annually.
Wilcox (the husband) worked as a production manager for 14 years, earning about $75,000 per year, before the parties purchased a power sports business. After several years, the business became profitable. As part of the divorce, the court awarded the business to Wilcox.
After considering all the factors, the trial court ordered Wilcox to pay his spouse $4,000 in monthly maintenance for the next 11 years.
Before reviewing the facts, the Washington Supreme Court reviewed the history of alimony and spousal support in the state. Before 1973, a spouse had to establish that he or she needed support before the court could award maintenance. But then the law changed.
Under RCW 26.09.090, the legislature instructed the courts to award spousal maintenance if such an award would be “just.” A court should consider need, but only as one factor among many. In other words, a court can order maintenance even if the lower-earning income spouse does not demonstrate need.
In this case, the Court ruled that the trial court's maintenance award was just and reasonable. Because Wilcox got the business, because the business was increasingly profitable, and because the business was the couple's “only significant income producing asset,” the court ruled that over time the financial disparity between Wilcox and his wife would increase. Even though the wife could earn more money in the future, her age and professional experience made it unlikely that she could earn that much more money.
Comments
There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.
Leave a Comment