In Re: Marriage Of Jose Ocasio-santiago, App/cross-resp And Kimberley Ocasio, Resp/cross-app, 48066-2

Background

Jose Ocasio-Santiago and Kimberley Rockwood divorced after a long marriage; Jose remained on active duty in the U.S. Army throughout the marriage and at appeal.
The dissolution decree awarded Rockwood spousal maintenance of $2,457.04 per month beginning June 1, 2014, ending upon Jose’s retirement; the decree also awarded Rockwood 47% of Jose’s military retirement based on net disposable retirement pay and included a QDRO.
Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) requested a clarifying order because the decretal language did not specify a clear percentage or fixed amount of retirement pay to be paid to Rockwood.
Jose moved to modify spousal maintenance (or vacate under CR 60(b)), arguing his retirement date had shifted and Rockwood had achieved employment and benefits; a commissioner denied vacatur and clarified the pension division, awarding fees to Rockwood.
On revision, the superior court reduced maintenance to $1,400/month for six months beginning Sept. 1, 2015, then terminated it, denied vacatur, and each party was to bear their own attorney fees.
Jose appealed the clarifying order and revision ruling; Rockwood cross-appealed the reduction of maintenance and sought attorney fees on appeal.

Issues

Issue	Ocasio-Santiago's Argument	Rockwood's Argument	Held
Whether the clarifying order and revision improperly divided military/disability benefits and violated federal law or substantively modified the decree	The clarifying order and revision exceeded clarification, altered decree, and conflicted with federal preemption principles	Issues weren’t preserved below; trial court had no chance to correct; no manifest constitutional error shown	Not considered on the merits: Jose failed to preserve the arguments and they were not manifest constitutional errors
Whether there was a substantial change in circumstances warranting modification of spousal maintenance	Maintenance shouldn’t be reduced because no substantial change occurred; original terms (ending at retirement) controlled	Rockwood’s new permanent Army employment with benefits was a substantial and material change reducing need	Modification affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion in reducing amount and duration
Whether shortening the duration of maintenance was improper	Shortening could force disproportionate burden on Jose if he delayed retirement; decree only said termination on retirement	Court may set duration it deems just; Rockwood’s employment and similar incomes justified limiting duration	Affirmed: trial court acted within discretion to limit duration to six months then terminate
Whether Rockwood should receive attorney fees (trial and appellate)	N/A (respondent/cross-appellant sought fees)	Superior court commissioner had awarded fees; on revision judge denied them; on appeal Rockwood sought fees but failed to file required affidavit	Fees denied: trial court’s denial affirmed; appellate fee request denied for failure to timely file financial declaration

Key Cases Cited

State v. O’Hara, 167 Wn.2d 91 (2009) (preservation rule and purpose of allowing trial court to correct errors)
Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Ctr., Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1378 (2015) (Supremacy Clause does not itself create a cause of action or federal right enforceable without more)
In re Marriage of Bowen, 168 Wn. App. 581 (2012) (trial court has broad discretion in property distribution and appellate review is deferential)
In re Marriage of Littlefield, 133 Wn.2d 39 (1997) (standards for abuse of discretion)
In re Marriage of Ochsner, 47 Wn. App. 520 (1987) (change in employment can be a substantial change of circumstances for maintenance modification)
Lambert v. Lambert, 66 Wn.2d 503 (1965) (definition of "change of circumstances" for maintenance modification)
In re Marriage of Spreen, 107 Wn. App. 341 (2001) (trial court discretion on maintenance duration; facts determine reasonable length)
Mellon v. Reg’l Tr. Servs. Corp., 182 Wn. App. 476 (2014) (discussion of federal preemption and Supremacy Clause interpretation)
In re Marriage of Tomsovic, 118 Wn. App. 96 (2003) (a substantial change is an unanticipated fact arising after decree)
In re Marriage of Raskob, 183 Wn. App. 503 (2014) (timeliness requirement for filing financial declaration to support attorney-fee requests)