In re the Marriage of: Roger L. Aldrich and Mary Beth Aldrich, 34564-5

Roger and Mary Beth Aldrich divorced in 2010; the decree awarded Mary Beth lifetime spousal maintenance of $2,500/month (one-half of Roger's then gross salary) and included a provision requiring Roger to pay 35% of any future gross earnings increase.
The 2010 decree found Roger was underemployed but did not provide a mechanism for decreased income; neither party appealed the decree.
In 2015 Roger's employer reduced his salary and then eliminated his position; he thereafter earned substantially less, obtained limited contract work, applied for jobs and vocational help, and sought unemployment benefits.
Roger filed a petition to modify maintenance on the ground of a substantial, unforeseen change in financial circumstances; the commissioner denied the petition, finding no substantial change and questioning Roger’s good faith.
The superior court commissioner awarded attorney fees to Mary Beth following a need-and-ability analysis.
The Court of Appeals concluded the record shows an actual income reduction not explained by voluntary underemployment and remanded for reconsideration of modification and attendant fee determinations.

Issue	Roger's Argument	Mary Beth's Argument	Held
Whether a substantial change in circumstances occurred warranting modification of lifetime spousal maintenance	Roger argues his income materially decreased due to employer layoffs and he cannot meet the decree's maintenance obligation despite good-faith job searches	Mary Beth contends the income drop is in bad faith (e.g., Roger fabricated job loss, appears listed on employer website) and thus not a basis for modification	Reversed denial and remanded: uncontroverted evidence shows significant income reduction; court must consider actual income unless substantial evidence of voluntary underemployment exists
Whether the commissioner properly awarded Mary Beth attorney fees following need-and-ability analysis	Roger argues fee determination must be revisited if modification is granted	Mary Beth sought fees based on prevailing at the modification hearing	Remanded for reconsideration of fees and costs in light of the remand on modification

In re Marriage of Coyle, 61 Wn. App. 653 (1991) (lifetime maintenance disfavored; modification available)
In re Marriage of Spreen, 107 Wn. App. 341 (2001) (RCW 26.09.170 permits modification for substantial change in circumstances)
In re Marriage of Ochsner, 47 Wn. App. 520 (1987) (change-in-circumstances standard focuses on obligor's ability to pay vs. obligee's necessities)
In re Marriage of Drlik, 121 Wn. App. 269 (2004) (modification review standard: abuse of discretion)
Lambert v. Lambert, 66 Wn.2d 503 (1965) (courts may deny modification for bad-faith income reduction)
State v. Rohrich, 149 Wn.2d 647 (2003) (decision is untenable if unsupported by the record)