In re Marriage of Dickson

• Decision Date: 01 May 2014
• Docket Number: 30459-1-III
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals
• Parties: In re the Marriage of: DANEILLE DICKSON, Respondent, and CRAIG DICKSON, Appellant.

In re the Marriage of: DANEILLE DICKSON, Respondent, and CRAIG DICKSON, Appellant.

No. 30459-1-III

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 3

May 1, 2014

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Fearing, J.

In this marriage dissolution proceeding, the trial court ordered Craig Dickson to pay maintenance to Daneille Dickson, child support and private school tuition for the couple's minor child, all postsecondary expenses for the couple's college age child, a property equalization payment, and a portion of Ms. Dickson's attorney fees. Mr. Dickson assigns six errors to the rulings of the trial court. He contends the trial court (1) failed to properly consider the statutory factors in calculating maintenance, (2) wrongly set child and postsecondary support amounts, (3) neglected to consider his separate property contribution to the family home, (4) failed to apply credit for retroactive payments (5) failed to take into account the business assets seized by the federal government in dividing the parties' property and (6) wrongly ordered him to pay a portion of Ms Dickson's attorney fees. After a two-week trial but before the trial court's ruling, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) seized assets of the couple as the result of Mr. Dickson's criminal "structuring" activity. The seizure complicated the issues to be resolved and the trial court thereafter convened an additional week of trial.

FACTS

The Dicksons married on July 6, 1991. They have two children: Jordan (age 21) and Regan (age 18). Ms. Dickson has only a high school education and stayed at home to care for the children during much of the marriage. Mr. Dickson holds a college degree. Ms. Dickson petitioned for dissolution on August 10, 2009.

Mr. Dickson received an inheritance from his mother's estate in 2002. Mr. Dickson claims that the parties used $200, 000 of the inheritance for a down payment on a family home. Ms. Dickson testified she was unaware the down payment came from an inheritance.

Most of the parties' assets were acquired by income generated by their successful business, Dickson Iron & Metals, Inc. (DI&M), which resells scrap metal. Mr. Dickson, however, failed to produce in discovery or at trial income tax returns for the two years preceding trial. In November 2008, Ms. Dickson opened Rogue, a coffee shop, but it failed and closed less than a year later.

At the time of dissolution, Jordan was a sophomore attending Whitman College. His annual tuition is $50, 000 per year. Regan was a junior at a private high school in Colorado, where her mother relocated. Her annual costs for tuition and fees approximate $15, 000.

Trial proceeded in mid-July 2010. During trial, expert appraisers testified as to the value of DI&M. Ms. Dickson's expert, Douglas Brajcich, employed a capitalized excess earnings method of valuation and valued DI&M at $3 million. Mr. Dickson's expert, Dan Harper, testified that a straight capitalization accounting methodology was a more appropriate method to value the scrap metal business. Mr. Harper appraised DI&M as being worth between $1, 494, 153 and $1, 642, 675.

On August 31, 2010, after trial but before the trial court entered final orders on the petition for dissolution, the FBI raided DI&M, Mr. Dickson's residence, and the family residence occupied by Ms. Dickson. The FBI seized cash, the account balances in DI&M bank accounts, business records of the company, and personal vehicles. On August 31, the FBI also seized, from Mr. Dickson, checks made payable to DI&M, totaling $448, 470. Dickson carried the checks in a duffle bag on his way to work. The checks were dated from the middle of July 2010 through the fourth week of August 2010.

Eventually the federal government charged Mr. Dickson with structuring financial transactions to avoid reporting requirements and conspiracy to commit structuring based on DI&M business practices from January 1, 2005 through April 30, 2008. The government alleged that Mr. Dickson laundered stolen scrap metal for thieves and tried to keep the transactions hidden. In March 2011, Mr. Dickson pled guilty to seven counts of structuring financial transactions and one count of conspiracy to commit the same offense. Mr. Dickson and the government entered into a plea agreement whereby Mr. Dickson forfeited real property, vehicles, and retirement accounts. He also agreed to pay a money judgment.

During the forfeiture proceedings, Ms. Dickson asserted she was an innocent owner and had a superior interest to some of the seized assets. On July 6, 2011, Ms. Dickson entered into a stipulation with the federal government, under which the government paid her $15, 000 and returned to her a Lexus and a BMW. In exchange, Ms. Dickson released all other claims to the forfeited assets.

At the request of Mr. Dickson, the trial court reopened the trial for presentation of additional evidence resulting from the FBI seizures. The dissolution trial resumed on July 13, 2011, and continued until July 20, 2011. During the reconvened trial, Mr. Dickson testified that he had not deposited the $448, 470 in checks seized by the government because he had a "pile of paperwork coming out of trial." Report of Proceedings (RP) at 1909.

After completion of trial, the trial court dissolved the parties' marriage and ordered Mr. Dickson to pay $6, 500.00 per month in maintenance from September 1, 2011, to August 31, 2013. The court ordered Mr. Dickson to pay $1, 257.60 per month in child support for Regan, all of Jordan's educational expenses for the next three years, and Regan's private school expenses up to $15, 000.00 per school year for two years. On the child support worksheet, the court calculated Mr. Dickson's net monthly income at $12, 303.00 and Ms. Dickson's net monthly income at $5, 725.62, based upon the maintenance award. Also on the child support worksheet, the court used the figure for a one-child household, even though Mr. Dickson was ordered to pay postsecondary support for Jordan. In dividing the couple's property, the trial court awarded the $317, 121.27 proceeds from the sale of the family home to Ms. Dickson, finding the $200, 000.00 down payment from Mr. Dickson's inheritance was commingled and, thus, community property. The trial court estimated the value of the seized property, cash, and vehicles to be $1, 358, 763.00. The court counted the assets seized by the government as assets awarded to Mr. Dickson. In other words, only Mr. Dickson was burdened, in the trial court ruling, by the seizure.

The court valued DI&M at $2, 500, 000.00 and awarded the business to Mr. Dickson. The court ordered him to pay Ms. Dickson an equalization payment of $2, 012, 059.50. The distribution and equalization payment resulted in each party receiving distribution of $2, 888, 774.50. The court ordered Mr. Dickson to pay $59, 047.00 in Ms. Dickson's attorney fees and costs. The court allowed these fees to be deducted from the equalization payment, reducing the equalization payment to $ 1, 953, 012.50 with an interest rate of 12 percent per annum.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

ISSUE I. Maintenance

The trial court granted Ms. Dickson $6, 500 per month for two years beginning September 2011. On appeal, Mr. Dickson argues the maintenance amount is unjust and contrary to RCW 26.09.090 for various reasons. According to Mr. Dickson, the parties did not have a long-term marriage. Ms. Dickson has marketable skills. Ms. Dickson is financially able to provide for herself and is supported by her cohabitating boyfriend. She continues to live the same, if not better, lifestyle. Mr Dickson does not have the ability to pay. Mr. Dickson claims legal error because the trial court refused to consider the income of Ms. Dickson's boyfriend as support to Ms. Dickson before assessing spousal maintenance upon Mr. Dickson.

RCW 26.09.090 controls awards of spousal maintenance. The statute reads, in relevant part:

(1) In a proceeding for dissolution of marriage ..., the court may grant a maintenance order for either spouse .... The maintenance order shall be in such amounts and for such periods of time as the court deems just, without regard to misconduct, after considering all relevant factors including but not limited to:

(a) The financial resources of the party seeking maintenance, including separate or community property apportioned to him or her, and his or her ability to meet his or her needs independently, including the extent to which a provision for support of a child living with the party includes a sum for that party;

(b) The time necessary to acquire sufficient education or training to enable the party seeking maintenance to find employment appropriate to his or her skill, interests, style of life, and other attendant circumstances;

(c) The standard of living established during the marriage or domestic partnership;

(d) The duration of the marriage or domestic partnership;

(e) The age, physical and emotional condition, and financial obligations of the spouse or domestic partner seeking maintenance; and

(f) The ability of the spouse or domestic partner from whom maintenance is sought to meet his or her needs and financial obligations while meeting those of the spouse or domestic partner seeking maintenance.

We review the trial court's decision on an award of maintenance for abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of Zahm, 138 Wn.2d 213, 226-27, 978 P.2d 498 (1999). "An award of maintenance that is not based upon a fair consideration of the statutory factors constitutes an abuse of discretion." In re Marriage of Crosetto, 82 Wn.App. 545, 558, 918 P.2d 954 (1996). Ultimately, the court's main concern must be the parties' economic situations post dissolution. In re Marriage of Williams, 84 Wn.App. 263, 268, 927 P.2d 679 (1996). "The only limitation on amount and...