Joseph A. Bundy v. Pamela J. Rush
51968-2
Wash. Ct. App.Apr 7, 2020Background
- Parties: Joseph A. Bundy (former Tacoma police officer) and Pamela J. Rush, parents of a minor son; Bundy retired at 56 with full LEOFF benefits.
- Commissioner: A pro tem commissioner found Bundy voluntarily underemployed and imputed his pre-retirement salary for child support, increasing his obligation.
- Superior court: On revision, the superior court reversed the commissioner, finding Bundy’s retirement reasonable given his career, injuries, and health issues, and set support based on Bundy’s actual retirement and rental income.
- Procedural posture: Rush appealed the superior court’s refusal to impute income, and challenged the court’s treatment of other income sources and extracurricular expense allocation.
- Court’s action: Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court’s refusal to impute income, upheld treatment of the other income items, and remanded for an express finding on whether disputed extracurricular expenses are reasonable and necessary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bundy’s retirement constitutes voluntary underemployment/unemployment under RCW 26.19.071(6) and supports imputation of pre-retirement income | Rush: Retirement before age 67 is effectively voluntary and income should be imputed to historical salary (advocates bright-line rule). | Bundy: Retirement was reasonable (LEOFF eligibility, long service, injuries, health) so actual retirement income should be used. | Court: Rejected a bright-line age rule; adopted an overall-reasonableness test considering all relevant facts and affirmed no imputation here. |
| Whether proceeds from a one-time house flip should be included in monthly gross income | Rush: Real estate profit should be counted as income. | Bundy: The house flip was nonrecurring and not a reliable income source. | Court: Reasonable to treat the flip as nonrecurring under RCW 26.19.075(1)(b); exclusion affirmed. |
| Whether rental income and VEBA benefits should be included in gross income | Rush: Rental income understated; VEBA benefits should be included. | Bundy: Rental amount as found is supported; VEBA treatment is not shown to be recurring income or within statutory definitions. | Court: Affirmed the rental income finding and exclusion of VEBA benefits due to lack of authority and conflicting record evidence. |
| Whether extracurricular expenses should be apportioned proportionally | Rush: Court should order parents to share extracurricular costs proportionally under RCW 26.19.080(3). | Bundy: (Implicit) Court must first find expenses are reasonable and necessary before apportioning. | Court: Remanded: superior court failed to make an express finding on reasonableness/necessity; if found reasonable and necessary, allocate proportionately. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Booth, 114 Wn.2d 772 (1990) (abuse of discretion standard for child support modifications)
- In re Marriage of Chandola, 180 Wn.2d 632 (2014) (abuse of discretion and standards for appellate review)
- In re Marriage of Katare, 175 Wn.2d 23 (2012) (discusses discretionary review framework)
- McCleary v. State, 173 Wn.2d 477 (2012) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Pimm v. Pimm, 601 So.2d 534 (Fla. 1992) (endorses overall reasonableness test for voluntary retirement)
- Deegan v. Deegan, 254 N.J. Super. Ct. 350 (App. Div. 1992) (reasonableness of early retirement is fact-specific)
- In re Marriage of Yeamans, 117 Wn. App. 593 (2003) (step one: determine reasonableness/necessity of extraordinary expenses; step two: apportion proportionately)
- In re Marriage of Peterson, 80 Wn. App. 148 (1995) (definitions of "gainful employment" contrasted; superior court erred treating retirement as per se equivalent to full-time gainful employment)