Pop Quiz is an ongoing series about cases from the Washington State Court of Appeals and the Washington Supreme Court. Each post includes some facts about a specific case, then invites you to guess which of the four choices best describes the court’s ruling.
This is a divorce case involving a property settlement and a Judge who waxed eloquent about the wife’s supposed “marital misconduct.” The biggest surprise, given the Judge’s ideas about which spouse was guilty of misconduct, is that the case is actually from 2005, not 1905. Judges like this are exactly why we have a Court of Appeals …
During their four-and-a-half year marriage, Mr. Muhammad was employed as a deputy sheriff for Pierce County, and Mrs. Muhammad was employed at a supermarket and at Pierce County Transit. In April 2001, Mr. and Mrs. Muhammad engaged in an argument during which Mr. Muhammad allegedly pointed a weapon at his wife.
Subsequently, the couple separated, and Mrs. Muhammad obtained an order of protection, which barred Mr. Muhammad from owning or possessing a firearm in any capacity. As a result, Mr. Muhammad lost his job in law enforcement. The trial court remarked extensively on the relationship between Mr. Muhammad’s unemployment and Mrs. Muhammad’s decision to obtain a protective order. The remarks included the following excerpts:
“… Mrs. Muhammad has sought to punish Mr. Muhammad….”
“[Mrs. Muhammad] had to know or at least should have known or should have been told that if she proceeded with this protection order, that [Mr. Muhammad] was not going to have a job and he wasn’t going to have an income and he wasn’t going to be able to pay his debts….”
The trial court considered marital fault when distributing the property amongst the parties, disfavoring Mrs. Muhammad because she obtained an order for protection. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s distribution of the parties’ assets and liabilities.
Did the Washington State Supreme Court affirm the trial court’s analysis of Mrs. Muhammad’s decision to obtain a domestic violence protection order against her as marital fault?
(a) Yes, a Washington State court may consider any form of marital fault or misconduct in all dissolution of marriage cases.
(b) Yes, the consideration of fault was justified in dividing the property because Mrs. Muhammad should have known what the consequences of her actions would have been.
(c) No, the trial court abused its discretion; consideration of marital misconduct is explicitly prohibited by Washington State statute.
(d) No, the Washington State Supreme Court found fault against Mrs. Muhammad based on other grounds.
Answer: (c) No, the trial court abused its discretion; consideration of marital misconduct is explicitly prohibited by Washington State statute.
Citation: 153 Wash.2d 795, 108 P.3d 779 (Wash. 2005)
Check out this important statute: RCW 26.09.080. Disposition of property and liabilities–Factors
In a proceeding for dissolution of the marriage, legal separation, declaration of invalidity, or in a proceeding for disposition of property following dissolution of the marriage by a court which lacked personal jurisdiction over the absent spouse or lacked jurisdiction to dispose of the property, the court shall, without regard to marital misconduct, make such disposition of the property and the liabilities of the parties, either community or separate, as shall appear just and equitable after considering all relevant factors including, but not limited to:
(1) The nature and extent of the community property;
(2) The nature and extent of the separate property;
(3) The duration of the marriage; and
(4) The economic circumstances of each spouse at the time the division of property is to become effective, including the desirability of awarding the family home or the right to live therein for reasonable periods to a spouse with whom the children reside the majority of the time.
