In Re The Marriage Of: Zeleke Kassahun v. Fanaye Ashagari
75496-3
| Wash. Ct. App. | Dec 11, 2017Background
- Zeleke Kassahun and Fanaye Ashagari divorced after a long marriage with three children; dissolution court found Kassahun’s gross monthly income was $12,750 and ordered $1,696 monthly child support and $5,000 monthly maintenance for Ashagari.
- Kassahun appealed the original income calculation; this court remanded for clarification and the dissolution court recalculated income and left maintenance at $5,000/month.
- Kassahun then petitioned to modify child support and maintenance, claiming a substantial change in circumstances: dramatically reduced income, reliance on loans, and industry decline for his taxicab licenses.
- At the modification trial the court reviewed tax returns (2011–2014), financial declarations, testimony about business withdrawals, new bank accounts to avoid garnishment, and Ashagari’s post-support employment and reliance on public assistance.
- The modification court found Kassahun’s testimony not credible, found he routinely used business funds for personal expenses, concluded there was no unforeseen substantial change in circumstances, denied modification, and declined to impute income to Ashagari.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the modification denial and awarded Ashagari appellate attorney fees under RCW 26.09.140.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Kassahun) | Defendant's Argument (Ashagari) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dissolution court erred by striking "non-modifiable" language without reconsidering maintenance | Striking the clause left maintenance immune from reconsideration | Court already reconsidered maintenance on remand after striking the clause | Denied — court had reconsidered maintenance after striking non-modifiable language |
| Whether there was a substantial change in circumstances justifying modification | Kassahun claimed dramatic income loss, reliance on loans, industry decline, and inability to pay obligations | Ashagari argued evidence did not show an unforeseen, material income decline and Kassahun’s records/testimony were not credible | Denied — modification court did not abuse discretion; Kassahun failed to prove substantial change |
| Whether modification court needed to calculate Kassahun’s current gross monthly income explicitly | Kassahun argued the court must compute present income before denying modification (citing Bucklin) | Ashagari argued court may deny where claimant fails to provide credible, verifiable income evidence | Denied — Bucklin prohibits guessing income, but court need not supply an explicit calculation when party fails to present credible verification |
| Whether Ashagari’s actual (new, small) income or voluntary underemployment required imputation or reduced support | Kassahun argued Ashagari’s new income and ability to work meant support should be reduced or imputed | Ashagari showed she left school and relied on public assistance after maintenance ceased; court found she was not voluntarily underemployed and income was minimal | Denied — change in Ashagari’s income was not a substantial, unforeseen change and imputation was not warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Short, 125 Wn.2d 865 (1995) (nonmodifiable maintenance language must be reconsidered when stricken)
- In re Marriage of Bucklin, 70 Wn. App. 837 (1993) (court may not "guess" income; modification requires verified evidence)
- In re Marriage of Scanlon, 109 Wn. App. 167 (2001) (substantial change must be unforeseen at original decree)
- In re Marriage of Spreen, 107 Wn. App. 341 (2001) (burden on moving party to prove substantial unforeseen change)