In Re The Marriage Of: Amber Hansen, Resp/cross-app v. Troy Edward Hansen, App/cross-resp, 73468-7

Background

Troy and Amber Hansen married in 2001 and have two children; Troy was the primary earner and Amber stayed home, financially dependent on Troy.
In June 2013 Troy withdrew $242,211 from joint retirement accounts to buy a branch of his bail bond business, incurring $120,136 in taxes and penalties.
Amber filed for divorce in October 2013; after bench trial the court divided the roughly $9 million estate 50/50, awarded the business to Troy, and ordered Troy to pay Amber an equalizing cash payment and $20,000/month maintenance for 60 months.
The trial court found Troy had wasted community assets by liquidating retirement accounts (charging him $120,136 as a predistribution, with half—$60,068—deducted from his share), found the business included separate Kent property, ordered child support of $4,000/month, and ordered parents to split postsecondary education costs equally.
Troy appealed challenging the waste finding/reimbursement, inclusion of separate property in business valuation, child support deviation, and postsecondary support apportionment; Amber cross-appealed the equal allocation of college costs and sought appellate attorney fees.

Issues

Issue	Troy's Argument	Amber's Argument	Held
Whether Troy "wasted" community assets by withdrawing retirement funds (predistribution)	Withdrawal was a prudent business investment; not waste; Amber agreed so no waste	Withdrawal incurred unnecessary tax penalties and left minimal liquid assets while divorce contemplated — waste	Court's waste findings supported by substantial evidence; treated taxes/penalties as predistribution and charged Troy half against his share
Whether trial court improperly included Troy's separate Kent property in business valuation	Kent property is separate; court should reimburse Troy for its value	Kent property was used in business operations and valuation may properly be considered in distribution	Inclusion of Kent property in business valuation permissible; distribution reasonable and not abuse of discretion
Whether child support deviation to $4,000/month was improper	Trial judge’s oral comments show lack of McCausland analysis; findings are cursory	Court considered combined income, children’s needs, standard of living, tax planning and wealth — sufficient	Written findings (though terse) satisfied McCausland; no abuse of discretion in deviating from guideline amount
Whether postsecondary education costs must be allocated proportionally to income	Proportionate share would make Troy pay ~66% and Amber ~34%; court erred ordering 50/50	Deviation from proportionate allocation is permissible given overall deviation from basic support and relative resources	Court did not abuse discretion ordering equal sharing of college costs given property division, children's funds, and wealth considerations

Key Cases Cited

In re Marriage of Steadman, 63 Wn. App. 523 (1991) (defines waste as squandering marital assets or unnecessary tax liabilities)
In re Marriage of Rockwell, 141 Wn. App. 235 (2007) (appellate standard for disturbing trial findings: substantial evidence)
In re Marriage of Griswold, 112 Wn. App. 333 (2002) (definition of substantial evidence standard)
Bering v. SHARE, 106 Wn.2d 212 (1995) (discussion of substantial evidence quotation)
In re Marriage of Greene, 97 Wn. App. 708 (1999) (deference to trial court credibility determinations)
In re Marriage of Wright, 179 Wn. App. 257 (2013) (trial court’s broad discretion in property distribution under RCW 26.09.080)
In re Marriage of Booth, 114 Wn.2d 772 (1990) (abuse of discretion review for child support decisions)
In re Marriage of Zacapu, 192 Wn. App. 700 (2016) (definition of manifest abuse of discretion)
In re Marriage of McCausland, 159 Wn.2d 607 (2007) (requirements for deviating from child support guidelines)
In re Marriage of Raskob, 183 Wn. App. 503 (2014) (written findings control over inconsistent oral statements)
In re Marriage of Daubert, 124 Wn. App. 483 (2004) (postsecondary support is child support and apportioned by parents’ net income)
In re Yeamans, 117 Wn. App. 593 (2003) (court may deviate from proportionate allocation of extraordinary expenses)
In re Marriage of Casey, 88 Wn. App. 662 (1997) (illustrates deviation from proportionate allocation when appropriate)