Elizabeth R. Sutherlin v. Scott K. Sutherlin
34370-7
| Wash. Ct. App. | May 11, 2017Background
- Scott and Elizabeth Sutherlin divorced in 2006; decree required Elizabeth to pay Scott a $29,100 equalization payment "at her ability," payable on sale/refinance of the home or due in full within 90 days after the youngest child's high school graduation.
- In 2007 the parties signed a Voluntary Settlement Agreement clarifying payment: debt "will not be due until 90 days after" the youngest daughter's graduation (approx. Sept. 2017) but "if the debt can be paid prior to that, the paying party may do so without any prepayment penalty." It also included a 10-day certified-mail notice/default provision.
- In 2016 Scott sought an ex parte TRO to restrain Elizabeth from disposing of funds he alleged could satisfy the equalization obligation; he asserted she had paid nothing in nine years and had received substantial funds (inheritances, a promissory note).
- A court commissioner issued the TRO but, after Elizabeth produced the 2007 settlement agreement and declarations about her liabilities, quashed the TRO orally, noting a factual dispute about Elizabeth's present ability to pay and suggesting discovery/hearing was needed.
- Scott sought revision; the superior court reviewed the file, construed the settlement agreement as delaying any obligation to pay until ~Sept. 2017 (while allowing voluntary early payment), found the notice/default provision relevant, and affirmed the commissioner’s decision to quash the TRO.
- The appellate court affirmed: it construed the decree and settlement agreement harmoniously (clarification controls where inconsistent), held equitable criteria for injunctive relief were not met on the record, and found Scott had not carried his extraordinary burden for a TRO without further discovery/hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sutherlin) | Defendant's Argument (Corulli) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2007 Voluntary Settlement Agreement modified/deferred the equalization payment such that a TRO was improper | The decree imposes an ongoing duty to pay "at her ability," and Elizabeth had funds available now; TRO was justified to preserve assets | The settlement clarified/deferred the due date until 90 days after graduation (≈ Sept. 2017) while allowing voluntary early payment; notice/default procedures apply | Court construed agreement as a clarification that set an outside due date but did not eliminate the "at her ability" duty; nevertheless, on the record the equitable grounds for a TRO were not shown and quash was proper |
| Whether the commissioner abused discretion in quashing the TRO | TRO was proper given alleged nine years of nonpayment and evidence of available funds | Commissioner reasonably found a factual dispute about present ability to pay requiring discovery; quash was within discretion | No abuse of discretion: further factual development was required before extraordinary relief could be continued |
| Whether Scott bore the burden to force Elizabeth to prove inability to pay at the show-cause hearing | Scott argued the order to show cause shifted the burden to Elizabeth to demonstrate inability to pay | Elizabeth argued Scott retained the burden to justify extraordinary relief; her declarations raised factual issues | Held that Scott, as movant for the TRO, bore the burden; the record did not show a clear right to injunctive relief |
| Whether appellate attorney fees should be awarded | Scott sought fees and bad-faith sanctions | Corulli opposed; court should consider relative ability to pay and merit | Denied: Scott did not show entitlement under RCW 26.09.140 nor bad-faith litigation; issues lacked sufficient merit for fee award |
Key Cases Cited
- Tyrrell v. Farmers Ins. Co., 140 Wn.2d 129 (review of contract interpretation is de novo)
- Alderwood Assocs. v. Wash. Envtl. Council, 96 Wn.2d 230 (injunction discretion standard)
- In re Marriage of Littlefield, 133 Wn.2d 39 (abuse of discretion standard for family-law rulings)
- Higgins v. Stafford, 123 Wn.2d 160 (later contract controlling when conflicts exist)
- Tyler Pipe Indus., Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 96 Wn.2d 785 (equitable criteria for injunctive relief)