Disproportionate Award of Assets in Tacoma and the Rest of Pierce County:
A disproportionate award of assets in the context of divorce refers to a situation where one spouse receives a greater share of the marital property than the other spouse. In Washington State, marital property is typically divided equitably, which often means equally, between the spouses. However, there are circumstances where a court may decide to award a disproportionate share of assets to one spouse.
Factors that may lead to a disproportionate award of assets in a divorce include:
- Economic Misconduct: If one spouse has engaged in financial misconduct, such as hiding assets, dissipating marital funds, or engaging in financial infidelity, the court may award a greater share of assets to the innocent spouse to compensate for the wrongdoing.
- Disparity in Earning Capacity: If there is a significant disparity in the earning capacity or future earning potential of the spouses, the court may award a disproportionate share of assets to the lower-earning spouse to help offset the economic disadvantage they may face post-divorce.
- Custodial Parent’s Needs: If one spouse is awarded primary custody of the children, the court may award them a greater share of assets to ensure they can provide for the children’s needs, such as housing and childcare expenses.
- Health or Age-Related Factors: Health or age-related factors that affect one spouse’s ability to support themselves financially may also be considered by the court when awarding assets.
Economic Misconduct/Attempts to Defraud a Party of Property or Destroy Property
If one spouse gives marital property to someone else, the court can step in. It might divide up the rest of the property between the spouses and compensate for the value of the defrauded marital property. Or it could order the spouse who made the wrongful transfer to make up for it.
The court can also consider a spouse’s attempt to destroy property or being careless with property so that it diminishes the property value. This is called waste. It typically has to be a substantial value in property and due to either being reckless with property or spending money frivolously on vices. These are rare exceptions and hard to argue without good legal knowledge. Here are some cases addressing such:
“In shaping a fair and equitable apportionment of the parties’ liabilities, the trial court was entitled to consider whose ‘negatively productive conduct’ resulted in the tax liabilities at issue. (n8) We note, however, that this is not to say that a court may not consider abuse by one spouse against another where that abuse has affected the economic circumstances of the abused spouse.” In re Marriage of Steadman, 63 Wn. App. 523, 528, 821 P.2d 59 (1991)
“It is apparent from the record that the testimony relating to Mr. Clark’s profligate life style was admitted and considered by the court not for the purpose of establishing ‘fault,’ but for the purpose of determining whose labor or negatively productive conduct was responsible for creating or dissipating certain marital assets. This was not error.”In re Marriage of Clark, 13 Wn. App. 805, 808, 538 P.2d 145, review denied, 85 Wn.2d 1001 (1975).
Gambling does not necessarily constitute a wasting of assets. In re Marriage of Williams, 84 Wn. App. 263, 927 P.2d 679 (1996), review denied, 131 Wn.2d 1025 (1997).
If waste is happening and you as a spouse do not take action, it can result in the Court deciding that you allowed the waste to happen. If the Court decides such you will likely not be able to recoup the wasted value of the property.
It’s important to note that the decision to award a disproportionate share of assets is at the discretion of the court and is based on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. Parties involved in a divorce should seek guidance from a family law attorney to understand their rights and options regarding the division of assets.
