In re Marriage of Olson, No. 43879-4-I

Decision Date30 May 2000
Docket Number No. 43952-9., No. 43879-4-I
Citation100 Wash.App. 911,999 P.2d 1286
PartiesIn re the MARRIAGE OF Wendy OLSON, Respondent, and Gregory L. Olson, Appellant. In re the Marriage of Diane M. Olson, Respondent, and Gregory L. Olson, Appellant.
CourtWashington Court of Appeals

Hyon Chun Pak, Seattle, for Appellant.

Wendy Olson, Bothell, for Respondents.

Lisa Powell Nelson, King County Pros. Atty. Ofc., Seattle, for State of Washington.

PER CURIAM.

A trial court must consider a parent's request for child support modification under RCW 26.09.170 even if a bond or other security to ensure support payments is in place under RCW 26.18.150; the existence of the security does not render the parent's modification request moot.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

When Gregory Olson and his first wife, Wendy Olson, were divorced in November 1983, the superior court entered an order requiring him to pay Wendy $300 per month in child support for his son, Eric Carl Olson. After Olson's second marriage to Diane Olson, also known as Diane Klemz, ended in divorce in November 1987, the court entered an order requiring him to pay $551 per month in child support to Diane for his daughter, Linnea Marie Olson.1 Olson did not fulfill these obligations.

In 1994, the Department of Social and Health Services, acting on Wendy's behalf, obtained a lien for $40,398.68 on "[a]ll real and personal property" of Olson's based on his debt for past-due child support. In 1997, Diane filed a lien claim for $40,040.00 against the house Olson had inherited from his father in 1993. Immediately thereafter, Olson filed a quitclaim deed, transferring the home to his girlfriend, Angel Townsend, for "no monetary consideration—love and affection." In January 1998, the State, acting on behalf of both of Olson's children, filed a petition to set aside this conveyance as fraudulent and sought payment of Olson's past and future child support obligations. Although the action began as a family law motion, it was eventually set for trial in superior court.

After a bench trial in June 1998, the trial court concluded that Olson's transfer of his home to Townsend was invalid under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act, RCW 19.40, finding that "Olson intended to defraud his former wives and children and prevent them from receiving past due child support by executing the Quit Claim deed with no equivalent value given in exchange when he was insolvent." Noting that the Clerk of the Court was holding $168,721.29 from the sale of the home,2 the court ordered that this money "should be distributed to the mothers, as to their respective percentages of debt, and future support as follows" in pertinent part:

Wendy Olson Diane Klemz Back Support: $37,581.41 $34,685.91 . [F]uture [S]upport[3] $ 6,000.00 $ 7,200.00

The record indicates that the Washington State Support Registry subsequently assumed and periodically disburses the money for the awards of future child support payments.4

A few months after the trial, Olson filed for modification of his support obligations to both Wendy and Diane. But the judge refused to entertain Olson's modification request, stating that the issue of how much support Olson owed was moot until the future child support awards described above had been paid. Specifically, the court remarked in its final order regarding Olson's obligation to Wendy that "the Modification is Moot because twenty months of future support was awarded in a Fraudulent Transfer Act case on June 19, 1998." Similarly, in its order on Olson's obligation to Diane the court stated that

the Modification is Moot because 2 year's [sic] of future support was awarded in a Fraudulent Transfers Act case on June 19, 1998, in which fraud was found. Mr. Olson can petition or move to modify child support in two year's [sic] when the money being held in the WSSR registry is disbursed and Mr. Olson has to begin making child support payments out of wages.

Olson appeals the trial court's refusal to consider his modification request.

DECISION

We must decide whether a parent's request for child support modification under RCW 26.09.170 may be heard while a bond or other security to ensure support payments is maintained under RCW 26.18.150. We disagree with the trial court's conclusion that the existence of court-ordered secured payments under the latter RCW section renders moot a modification request under the former section.5

RCW 26.09.170 and 26.18.150 have different but equally important purposes. A parent may petition the court for modification of his or her support obligation under RCW 26.09.170 for specified reasons, including income changes or "substantially changed circumstances." That provision thus ensures that a parent's support obligations are adjusted fairly and proportionately according to changes in a parent's unique circumstances.6 In contrast, RCW 26.18.150 gives the court discretionary authority, in any action to enforce a support obligation, to order a parent "to post a bond or other security with the court ... in the amount of support ... due for a two-year period." Then, if the parent fails to fulfill his or her support obligation, "the person entitled to receive payment may recover on the bond or other security...."7 Thus, the purpose of RCW 26.18.150 is to ensure that court-ordered support obligations are fulfilled, regardless of the actual amount of the parent's obligation. But it does not follow logically or legally that, as respondents argue, the existence of a bond or other security under ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Larue v. Harris, 31176-3-II.
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • July 19, 2005
    ...QUINN-BRINTNALL, C.J., and VAN DEREN, J. 1. State v. Turner, 98 Wash.2d 731, 733, 658 P.2d 658 (1983); In re Marriage of Olson, 100 Wash.App. 911, 915 n.5, 999 P.2d 1286 (2000). 2. Br. of Resp't at 13 (emphasis omitted). 3. Schwartz v. Douglas, 98 Wash.App. 836, 840, 991 P.2d 665, review de......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT