In re the Marriage of: Julie Ann Clark and Darryl G. Clark
34418-5
| Wash. Ct. App. | Oct 17, 2017Background
- Darryl and Dr. Julie Clark married in 1989, separated in 2014, and litigated dissolution with major disputes over the veterinary clinic and finances.
- Darryl was formerly the clinic manager, had an extramarital affair with another clinic veterinarian, was fired, and was unemployed at trial; Dr. Clark resumed management of the practice.
- Trial court imputed income to Darryl ($50,000, rising to $60,000 if unemployed six months later) and allocated child support so Darryl bore 25.8% of the child support obligation.
- The court awarded the veterinary practice to Dr. Clark, set an equalization payment to Darryl (~$92,084.58), denied further spousal maintenance, and assigned each parent 32% of the eldest child’s postsecondary expenses.
- Darryl appealed, challenging income imputation, postsecondary support apportionment, maintenance denial, admission of affair evidence, exclusion of a last-minute offer to purchase the clinic, and the property award.
Issues
| Issue | Clark's Argument | Dr. Clark's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Income imputation and monthly child support | Trial court erred in imputing income and overstating support | Imputation based on expert and history was proper | Affirmed: imputation to $50k (then $60k) was tenable and support calculation proper |
| Postsecondary education apportionment | Court erred assigning each parent 32% (equal shares) | Apportionment must follow net income ratios used for support | Reversed/remanded: postsecondary obligation must be redetermined per parents’ net incomes |
| Spousal maintenance denial | Long marriage and contributions to Dr. Clark’s career justified maintenance | Court properly considered statutory factors and denied maintenance | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion in denying further maintenance |
| Admission of affair evidence | Evidence of affair was prejudicial and improper | Evidence relevant to dissipation of assets and business impact; court limited its use | Affirmed: court narrowly allowed it for legitimate business/dissipation purposes; no prejudicial error |
| Exclusion of last-minute purchase offer | Exclusion of offer and witness testimony was erroneous and affected valuation | Offer was untimely; trial management/exclusion within court’s discretion; any error harmless | Not preserved; harmless in any event given experts’ testimony — affirmed |
| Property award (clinic) | Clinic should have been awarded to Darryl or divided differently | Award to Dr. Clark with buyout payment was equitable and least disruptive to business | Affirmed: discretionary, equitable award to Dr. Clark with equalization payment was not untenable |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Landry, 103 Wn.2d 807 (discretion in domestic matters supports finality)
- In re Marriage of Littlefield, 133 Wn.2d 39 (abuse of discretion standard)
- Burnet v. Spokane Ambulance, 131 Wn.2d 484 (requirements before imposing discovery sanctions)
- Keck v. Collins, 184 Wn.2d 358 (application of Burnet factors to untimely submissions)
- In re Marriage of Brewer, 137 Wn.2d 756 (trial court best positioned to craft equitable property division)
- State v. Guloy, 104 Wn.2d 412 (preservation of evidentiary objections required for appeal)
- In re Marriage of White, 105 Wn. App. 545 (marital misconduct evidence may be relevant to dissipation of assets)
- In re Marriage of Muhammad, 153 Wn.2d 795 (review standard for property division)