HOUSE BILL REPORT

HB 1621

BYRepresentatives Belcher, Jacobsen, Cole, R. King, R. Fisher, Bowman, Appelwick, Locke, Morris, Nelson, Haugen, Anderson, O'Brien, Wineberry and Brekke

Adding an additional factor of past, present, and future earning capacity into the spousal maintenance determination.

House Committe on Judiciary

Majority Report:  Do pass.  (17)

      Signed by Representatives Appelwick, Chair; Crane, Vice Chair; Padden, Ranking Republican Member; Belcher, Brough, Dellwo, Hargrove, Inslee, Locke, R. Meyers, Moyer, H. Myers, Patrick, Schmidt, Scott, D. Sommers and Tate

House Staff:Bill Perry (786-7123)

AS PASSED HOUSE MARCH 13, 1989

BACKGROUND:

A marriage dissolution may result in various financial obligations for either or both of the former spouses.  These obligations generally take one or more of three forms:  child support, spousal maintenance or property settlement.  The legislature has created a fairly tight statutory scheme for determining child support obligations.  Spousal maintenance and property settlement decisions, however, are left largely to the discretion of the court.

The statute requiring the division of marital property directs the court to make a "just and equitable" disposition after considering "all relevant factors." A short, non-exclusive list of four such factors is included in the statute, but the court is obviously free to exercise a great deal of discretion in fashioning a settlement.  Likewise, spousal maintenance may be ordered "as the court deems just."  Again, there is a short, non-exclusive list of relevant factors to be considered.

Case law has reinforced the principle of wide judicial discretion in ordering property settlements and maintenance.

The courts have also directly addressed the issue of one spouse's contribution towards the other spouse's earning power.  The typical example of this kind of case is one in which a spouse drops out of school to work or gives up a job in order for the other spouse to pursue a career in another location.  While finding it unnecessary to characterize an educational degree or career prospect as "property," the courts have held that such an item is a "relevant factor" to be considered in making a "just and equitable" property settlement under that statute.  The courts have also held that the foregone opportunity of a spouse to pursue such a degree or career is a "relevant factor" in a property settlement.

In addition, courts have generally allowed a high degree of interchangeability between property settlements and spousal maintenance.  For instance, property settlements may be awarded on an installment basis and maintenance in a lump sum, reversing the normal pattern.  Courts also consider the amount awarded in one category when decided how much to award in the other.

SUMMARY:

The earning capacity of spouses is explicitly listed as one of the factors that a court is to consider in awarding spousal maintenance in a marriage dissolution.  The court is to consider the past, present, and future earning capacity of both spouses and whether that capacity was enhanced, diminished or foregone during marriage.

Fiscal Note:      Not Requested.

House Committee ‑ Testified For:    Christina Meserve, Thurston County Family Law Committee; Kathy Coombs, Tax Consultant.

House Committee - Testified Against:      David MacDonald, United Fathers of America.

House Committee - Testimony For:    Courts currently have the authority to consider these factors in setting spousal maintenance.  Putting them in statute will encourage their use and promote equity in dissolutions, particularly dissolutions of long-term marriages in which one spouse has foregone significant opportunities for the benefit of the other's earning capacity.

House Committee - Testimony Against:      Case law allows these factors in property settlements already.  Explicitly allowing consideration in maintenance will increase the number of dissolution decree modifications that are sought.