Royal Fish, Sr., Appellant/cross-respondent v. Lisa Fish, Respondent/cross-appellant
48698-9
| Wash. Ct. App. | Apr 4, 2017Background
- Royal and Lisa Fish divorced in June 2014; decree required Royal to pay $3,800/month spousal maintenance and allowed review upon involuntary job loss or medical reasons.
- Royal lost his Bay West employment on December 5, 2014, stopped paying maintenance beginning January 2015, and filed a modification petition on January 21, 2015 seeking termination and maintenance from Lisa.
- Between January and May 2015 Royal received substantial one-time payments (including $53,000 from sale of awarded property, vacation/sick pay, a bonus, and a tax refund) and limited recurring income (retirement and VA disability); he did not apply for jobs after December and initially did not claim medical inability to work until June.
- SSA found Royal disabled effective December 5, 2014 but due to the 5-month waiting rule awarded benefits beginning June 2015; Royal later received Social Security disability beginning June 2015.
- The trial court suspended Royal’s maintenance effective June 2015, held him in contempt for willfully not paying maintenance January–May 2015 (ordering payment of $19,000 plus interest), and retained jurisdiction to revisit maintenance; both parties appealed issues.
Issues
| Issue | Royal's Argument | Lisa's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effective date of modification | Change of circumstances occurred Dec 5, 2014; modification should be effective as of petition (Jan 21, 2015) | No change shown before June because Royal didn’t credibly show he was unable to work | Court affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion in selecting June 2015 as effective date based on credibility and lack of evidence of inability to work before June |
| Whether Lisa must pay maintenance Jan–May 2015 | Royal sought maintenance from Lisa for Jan–May 2015 | Lisa lacked ability to pay given greater expenses and deficits | Court affirmed: trial court reasonably found Lisa could not pay and denied maintenance for that period |
| Contempt for nonpayment Jan–May 2015 | Royal contends nonpayment was justified by inability to pay and that one-time funds should not count | Lisa and court argued Royal had ability to pay (one-time receipts) so failure was intentional | Court affirmed contempt: substantial evidence Royal had ability to pay (one-time receipts) and contempt was appropriate unless unable to comply |
| Suspension vs termination of maintenance | Royal argued suspension was improper and maintenance should be terminated given SSA disability | Lisa (and trial court) argued suspension appropriate because trial court doubted Royal’s long-term unemployability and retained jurisdiction | Court affirmed suspension: trial court did not abuse discretion in suspending rather than terminating given credibility concerns and potential for Royal to resume work |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Drlik, 121 Wn. App. 269 (finding trial court may suspend maintenance; standard for modification)
- In re Marriage of Spreen, 107 Wn. App. 341 (defining change in circumstances for maintenance)
- Lambert v. Lambert, 66 Wn.2d 503 (voluntary unemployment not a substantial change by itself)
- In re Marriage of Mathews, 70 Wn. App. 116 (limits on using awarded asset proceeds to fund maintenance)
- In re Marriage of Valente, 179 Wn. App. 817 (standard of review for maintenance amount and modification)