Here is Washington State Case that talks about a court's ability to consider
one spouse's wasting
or concealing of community assets:
126 Wn. App. 546, In re Marriage of Kaseburg
In this case the court said:
"In summary, we affirm the general principle that in a dissolution action a
court has discretion
to consider allegations of concealment, fiscal misconduct, and waste of
community debts and
assets."
You might be able to reach it at this site:
http://www.mrsc.org/wa/courts/index_dtSearch.html
Here is some more info from the case:
A trial court has broad discretion under RCW 26.09.080 to evaluate and
distribute the parties'
property and liabilities. In re Marriage of Brewer , 137 Wn.2d 756 , 769, 976
P.2d 102 (1999). We
apply a manifest abuse of discretion standard to the trial court's dissolution
rulings. Brewer ,
137 Wn.2d at 769 . The trial court manifestly abuses its discretion if it makes
an untenable or
unreasonable decision. In re Marriage of Tower , 55 Wn. App. 697 , 700, 780
P.2d 863 (1989).
In evaluating the parties' property in a dissolution proceeding, "the trial
court may properly
consider a spouse's waste or concealment of assets." In re Marriage of Wallace
, 111 Wn. App.
697 , 708, 45 P.3d 1131 (2002), review denied , 148 Wn.2d 1011 (2003). But it
is well settled
that, "[w]hen exercising this broad discretion, a trial court focuses on the
assets then before
it - i.e., on the parties' assets at the time of trial. If one or both parties
disposed of an
asset before trial, the court simply has no ability to distribute that asset at
trial." In re
Marriage of White , 105 Wn. App. 545 , 549, 20 P.3d 481 (2001) (footnote
omitted).
B. Waste and Alleged Concealment
The court also based its decision on waste; but Ken's conduct was not wasteful.
Ken did not
willfully destroy or recklessly damage the home. And contrary to the court's
finding, his living
in the home after separation does not constitute waste. Rather, Ken supervised
the construction of
a large dream home that he, Rochelle, and their children lived in and enjoyed
for over five years
before the dissolution action, largely due to money received from Ken's parents.
Rochelle argues that Wallace supports the $150,000 award because Wallace
involved a "similar
situation." Br. of Resp't at 5; 111 Wn. App. at 706 . Although we agree with
Wallace 's general
legal principles, the facts in Wallace are distinguishable. In Wallace , the
husband conceded on
appeal to fraudulent conduct regarding property transfers to his father. 111
Wn. App. at 707 n.3.
Indeed, the primary fraudulent transfer in Wallace concerned a property quit
claimed without
notice to the wife, in violation of RCW 26.16.030 (3). 111 Wn. App. at 706 . In
Wallace , "the
record is replete with evidence that [the husband] committed waste and
attempted to conceal
assets." 111 Wn. App. at 708 . Unlike Wallace 's extensive evidence of fiscal
misconduct,
Rochelle's evidence focused exclusively on the alleged inflation of a debt that
was extinguished
in a valid foreclosure action that she had notice of and did not challenge. The
numerous instances
of fraud and fiscal misconduct in Wallace are not present here.
Kevin R. Scudder
Law Offices of Kevin R. Scudder
9706 4th Avenue NE, Suite 320
Seattle, WA 98115-2157
(206) 524-7828 Phone
(206) 524-1302 Fax
On Tue Jan 18 9:34 , "Michael V. Fancher" sent:
Fault is not a factor in Washington state. Wasting
of community assets on non-community purposes, however, can be
considered (gambling away community assets, spending community
assets on a girlfriend, etc.)
Mike Fancher
MICHAEL V. FANCHER
Seattle Divorce Services
2317 NW Market St.
Seattle, WAÂ 98107
206-784-3049
Mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 1/18/2011 8:35 AM, Ann Gushurst wrote:
Â
Hi
everyone. I just read that New York
is becoming a no fault state and
that there are now 49 no fault states. I think they
must mean that you no
longer have to prove fault in order to qualify for a
divorce.
Â
However,
I am doing some research on this, and discovered
that many states have provisions wherein fault
regularly influences awards. For
example, if there is fault, spousal support is
largely off the table.
Â
I was
wondering if you could let me know whether or not in
your jurisdiction, fault is a serious
considerationâ¦.
Â
Thanks!
Â
Ann
Gushurst
Â
Gutterman Griffiths PC
10375 Park Meadows Drive, Suite
520
Littleton, CO 80124
Phone: 303-858-8090
Fax:Â Â Â Â 303-858-8181
The information transmitted is intended only
for the person(s)or entity
to which it is addressed and may contain
confidential and/or legally privileged
material. Delivery of this message to any person
other than the intended
recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive
privilege or confidentiality.
Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other
use of, or taking of any
action in reliance upon, this information by
entities other than the intended
recipient is prohibited. If you receive this in
error, please contact the
sender and delete the material from any computer.
Â
