Michael Rohter v. Michelle Rohter
75105-1
| Wash. Ct. App. | Mar 6, 2017Background
- Michael and Michelle Rohter married in 2001, separated in 2014, and have two children (ages 8 and 9 at petition).
- At separation Michael worked as a private pilot (~$75,000/yr) but later took a lower-paying job (~$50,000/yr) for schedule flexibility and career growth.
- Michelle, injured in 2014 (rotator cuff), is permanently partially disabled per Dept. of Labor & Industries; she stopped full-time flying, pursued Montessori teacher training, and currently earns about $20,000/yr with expected future earnings of $35,000–$40,000 after internship; plans limited summer flying income.
- Trial court ordered Michael to pay child support ($656.11/month) and awarded Michelle maintenance ($1,000/month) for five years; trial court also awarded Michelle $10,000 in attorney fees below for Michael’s intransigence.
- Michael appealed challenging (1) child support (alleging Michelle was voluntarily underemployed) and (2) the maintenance award (alleging the court failed to consider all factors). Michelle sought appellate attorney fees based on intransigence.
Issues
| Issue | Rohter's Argument | Michelle's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by ordering Michael to pay child support because Michelle was voluntarily underemployed | The court failed to impute income to Michelle or consider that she could work more in summer; thus child support order improper | Trial court considered work history, disability, agreement that Michelle would teach and fly part-time, and found she was not voluntarily underemployed | No error — trial court’s factual finding that neither parent was voluntarily underemployed was tenable and not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding maintenance $1,000/mo for 5 years | Court failed to adequately consider statutory factors and Michael’s ability to pay | Court considered RCW 26.09.090 factors (resources, education time, marriage duration, disability, needs, Michael’s earning potential) and found maintenance appropriate | No error — trial court considered relevant factors and did not abuse discretion |
| Whether appellate attorney fees should be awarded to Michelle | (N/A on appeal) | Fees appropriate because trial court found Michael intransigent and had previously awarded fees; denying fees would undermine remedy | Affirmed — appellate fees awarded to preserve remedial effect of trial court’s fee award |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffin v. _, 114 Wn.2d 772 (1990) (standard: review child support orders for abuse of discretion)
- Littlefield v. _, 133 Wn.2d 39 (1997) (abuse of discretion defined: manifestly unreasonable or based on untenable grounds)
- Peterson v. _, 80 Wn. App. 148 (1995) (income imputation for purposeful underemployment)
- Quinn v. _, 153 Wn. App. 710 (2009) (appellate court will not reweigh witness credibility)
- Valente v. _, 179 Wn. App. 817 (2014) (standard of review for maintenance awards)
- Washburn v. _, 101 Wn.2d 168 (1984) (maintenance as flexible equalization tool)
- Bulicek v. _, 59 Wn. App. 630 (1990) (limitation on maintenance: award must be just considering factors)
- Wallace v. _, 111 Wn. App. 697 (2002) (appellate fees may be awarded for party intransigence)