Christy Jo Lyle v. Keith James Lyle
199 Wash. App. 629
Wash. Ct. App.2017Background
- In 2014 Christy Lyle petitioned to modify a 2009 child support order under RCW 26.09.170, submitting declarations and financial documentation.
- Keith Lyle opposed, arguing no substantial change in circumstances warranted modification; both sides submitted written materials and declarations.
- A superior court commissioner reviewed the filings, heard argument (no testimony), and dismissed Christy’s petition for lack of substantial change and severe economic hardship.
- Christy moved for revision to a superior court judge; the judge reviewed the existing record (no new evidence) and heard oral argument on the motion.
- The judge granted revision, found (1) substantial change in circumstances (children’s new age category and increased expenses), (2) severe economic hardship, and (3) change in income, adopted Christy’s proposed child support worksheet, and entered a support award.
- Keith appealed only the scope of the judge’s authority, arguing the judge should have remanded to the commissioner for determination of support rather than enter the support order directly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a superior court judge acting on a motion for revision may enter child support orders after reversing a commissioner’s dismissal | Lyle: Judge may decide the entire matter on the existing record and enter support as requested. | Keith: Judge should have remanded to the commissioner to determine support amounts. | The judge had plenary authority (except to receive new evidence) and could decide the petition and enter support without remand. |
| Whether remand was required because Keith lacked opportunity to seek a deviation from the standard support schedule | Lyle: Keith had opportunity to oppose the petition and never specifically requested a deviation. | Keith: Entry of support by the judge denied him a separate opportunity to argue for deviation. | Court: Keith had ample opportunity; failure to request deviation in the proceedings does not require a new hearing. |
| Award of appellate attorney fees | Lyle: Requests discretionary fees under RCW 26.09.140; submitted financial declaration showing need. | Keith: Did not contest in opinion. | Fees and costs on appeal awarded to Lyle, subject to RAP 18.1 compliance. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Smith, 117 Wn.2d 263 (discussing commissioner role and revision process)
- State ex rel. Biddinger v. Griffiths, 137 Wash. 448 (superior court judge takes jurisdiction of entire case on revision)
- State v. Ramer, 151 Wn.2d 106 (judge reviews law and evidence de novo on revision)
- In re Marriage of Moody, 137 Wn.2d 979 (remand appropriate only when factual record is incomplete)