In Re The Marriage Of: Dana Lynn Gordon v. Robert Earl Gordon, 75466-1

Dana and Robert Gordon divorced in 2012; they had three children (then 15, 13, 11) and an agreed dissolution allocation giving Dana over $4 million in assets.
The parties’ 2012 agreed child support/order created separate college accounts for each child and provided Robert would pay 54% and Dana 46% of additional postsecondary expenses, capped at the yearly cost "at a state-supported institution in the State of Washington."
The oldest son began attending Gonzaga University in 2015. Dana petitioned in 2016 to modify child support and the postsecondary-education provision.
At the June 24, 2016 hearing the trial court set Robert’s gross monthly income at $21,250 and Dana’s at $8,186, reduced Dana’s monthly maintenance-driven support, and set Robert’s transfer payment at $1,373.16 for the two minors.
The court denied Dana’s request to modify the postsecondary-education agreement for lack of a substantial change in circumstances, clarified the in-state cap to mean the University of Washington cost, and found both parents had substantial resources to cover excess college costs.
Dana appealed, arguing (among other points) miscalculation of incomes, missing exhibits, concealment of income, and that the college-cap should be removed; the court of appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Dana)	Defendant's Argument (Robert)	Held
Whether the trial court relied on incomplete evidence / missing exhibits	Court record lacked 14 exhibits and therefore underestimated Robert’s income	Parties agreed at hearing to use counsel’s copies; all evidence was presented	No error; Dana failed to show exhibits were missing or that evidence was not considered
Whether the trial court miscalculated parents’ incomes	Dana contends her income was lower and Robert’s higher (alleges concealment)	Court used evidence before it and accepted Robert’s $21,250 and calculated Dana’s $8,186	Calculations supported by substantial evidence; objections lack record support
Whether postsecondary-education agreement should be modified	Dana sought removal/raising of the cap arguing existing accounts are insufficient and Robert should fully fund college	Robert relied on the parties’ 2012 agreement and that no substantial change occurred	Modification denied: no substantial change in circumstances shown; court properly exercised discretion and clarified the ‘‘state-supported’’ cap
Whether car/extracurricular expenses should be reallocated	Dana sought proportionate parent contributions and court-ordered reasonable cars for children	2012 agreement provided car acquisition and maintenance from each child’s trust fund	Denied: Dana purchased cars without using trust funds and failed to show error in enforcing the original agreement

Mills v. Park, 67 Wn.2d 717 (court will not search record for appellant's unsupported arguments)
Saunders v. Lloyd's of London, 113 Wn.2d 330 (appellate standard re: issues raised without proper record support)
In re Marriage of Griffin, 114 Wn.2d 772 (standard for trial court modification authority)
In re Marriage of Littlefield, 133 Wn.2d 39 (abuse of discretion standard and required showing for modification)
In re Marriage of Sprute, 186 Wn. App. 342 (factors and limits for awarding postsecondary education expenses)