Blog Archives

Schneider v. Almgren

by

Docket No. 85112-3 (from Court of Appeals Division III Case No. 28469-7)  Facts:  Petitioner Jeffrey Almgren and respondent Carol Schneider were divorced in Nebraska in 1997 and Almgren was ordered to pay child support until their two children reached the age of majority.  Schneider and the children subsequently moved to Washington, where Schneider petitioned for post-secondary educational support for their daughter after she was accepted to college.  The trial court granted the petition.  Almgren appealed the trial court’s decision, asserting that the trial court lacked the authority to extend child support for their daughter beyond the age of majority. Continue reading →

In re marriage of Kowalewski

by

Docket No. 79662-9 (from Court of Appeals Division II Case No. 34256-1)  Facts: Petitioner Mariusz Kowalewski petitioned the Superior Court for Pierce County to vacate provisions of a divorce decree that it had previously issued dividing real property located in Poland between Kowalewski and his former wife, asserting that the court lacked jurisdiction to award title to property located outside of the state of Washington. Continue reading →

King v. King

by

Docket No. 79978-4 (from Snohomish Case No. 04-3-02385-0)  Facts:  After petitioner Brenda King and respondent Michael King filed for divorce, Michael King moved to be named the primary residential parent for their three children.  At the subsequent custody hearing, Michael King was represented by counsel while Brenda King appeared pro se due to her indigency.  The trial court awarded Michael King primary residential care of the children and decision-making authority.  Brenda King subsequently moved for a new hearing and requested that counsel be appointed at public expense to represent her.  The trial court denied the motion, ruling that it lacked authority to appoint counsel to represent Brenda King insofar as the legislature has not authorized funding for representation for indigent parties in child custody hearings. Continue reading →

Washington v. Graham

by

Docket No. 77858-2 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 52622-7)  Facts:  Richard Graham and Michele Cunliffe are divorced and share custody of their two children equally.  After both Graham and Cunliffe’s income changed and one of the children moved into a new age category on the child support schedule, the state of Washington petitioned for modification of their parenting plan.  In response, Graham petitioned to have his support payment modified pursuant to the support formula used in In re marriage of Arvey, a case that involved a parenting plan in which each parent had custody of one of two children.  The commissioner for the Superior Court for King County declined to apply the Arvey support formula to cases in which parents share custody of their children equally and instead extrapolated Graham’s child support obligation from Washington Revised Code §26.19’s economic table, which does not calculate child support obligations for parents with monthly incomes in excess of $7,000.  Graham appealed the commissioner’s decision, asserting that it imposed an inequitable burden upon him.  The superior court reversed the commissioner’s decision and based its revision of Graham’s child support obligation upon the Arvey support formula. Continue reading →

McCausland v. McCausland

by

Docket No. 77890-6 (from Court of Appeals Division II Case No. 31892-0)  Facts:  Petitioner Robert McCausland and his wife, respondent Angela McCausland, entered into a reconciliation agreement following their separation under which Robert McCausland agreed to pay his wife a monthly sum for spousal maintenance and child support.  When Robert McCausland’s financial circumstances changed, he petitioned for termination of the spousal maintenance payments and modification of the child support payments.  The trial court ruled that the reconciliation agreement is enforceable.  Robert McCausland appealed, asserting that the trial court erred in extrapolating his child support obligation from Washington Revised Code §26.19’s economic table, which does not calculate child support obligations for parents with monthly incomes in excess of $7,000. Continue reading →