Williams v. Williams

• Decision Date: 22 March 2022
• Docket Number: 55708-8-II
• Parties: In Re the Marriage of: SHAUN WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. JENNY WILLIAMS, Respondent.
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals

In Re the Marriage of: SHAUN WILLIAMS, Appellant,
v.
JENNY WILLIAMS, Respondent.

No. 55708-8-II

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2

March 22, 2022

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

WORSWICK, J.

Shaun Williams appeals from the superior court's denial of his motion to revise the superior court's order denying his motion to vacate the order granting his former wife, Jenny Williams', motion to enforce a Military Qualifying Court Order (MQCO). The MQCO, which was incorporated into the Williams' 2017 dissolution decree, assigned Jenny a portion of Shaun's military retirement. Post-dissolution, Shaun elected to receive disability in lieu of retirement and unilaterally reduced the amount of military retirement pay to Jenny as a result. Shaun argues that the superior court erred in denying his motion to revise its order denying his motion to vacate the order enforcing the MQCO because the doctrine of federal preemption deprived the superior court of subject matter jurisdiction to assign his VA (Veterans Affairs) disability benefits, and therefore, the dissolution decree incorporating the MQCO is void.

We hold that under the doctrine of res judicata, Shaun cannot collaterally challenge the validity of the unappealed dissolution decree and MQCO. We further hold that Jenny is entitled

1

to attorney fees on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the superior court's order denying revision and award Jenny attorney fees.

Facts

Shaun and Jenny Williams divorced in January 2017 after a decade of marriage. In 2017, the superior court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law finding the Williams' marriage irretrievably broken and dividing their property. The decree of dissolution ordered Shaun to pay Jenny spousal maintenance and awarded Jenny "a marital share from [Shaun's] Military Retired pay." Supp. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 233. The division of Shaun's military retirement pay was delineated in an agreed Military Qualifying Court Order (MQCO) entered the same day that assigned 50% of his disposable military retirement pay to Jenny. The MQCO provided,

This Court shall retain jurisdiction to modify the pension division or property division herein should the Husband waive military retired pay for VA disability compensation, retires early, or does not retire and as a result the Wife's share of his retired pay is reduced or negated. The Court shall retain jurisdiction in order to allow it to adjust the Wife's share to pre-waiver levels or require property transfers or payments, or any other form of equitable payment, ie. support from the Husband that would otherwise result in equity between the parties in order to carry out the intent of the Court in this order

Supp. CP at 163. Shaun did not appeal the dissolution decree or the MQCO.

Due to Shaun's failure to comply with the support orders entered by the court, including the MQCO, Jenny filed motions for enforcement in October 2018 and December 2018. A commissioner entered a temporary family law order finding that Shaun had circumvented the agreement of the parties. Shaun moved for reconsideration, which the commissioner denied.

In June 2019, Jenny sought an order determining the amount Shaun was required to pay her. In August 2019, the superior court entered an order for maintenance and enforcement of the MQCO, which ordered Shaun to pay Jenny maintenance in accordance to a schedule drafted by a

2

Special Master. Shaun did not appeal this order. After Shaun failed to pay, the superior court found him in contempt in February 2020 and ordered him to pay Jenny attorney fees. The superior court found Shaun still in contempt in May 2020 and entered another contempt order against him in June 2020.

In December 2020, Shaun filed a motion for an order to show cause as to why the 2019 order for maintenance and enforcement of the MQCO should not be vacated. The superior court denied Shaun's motion and awarded Jenny attorney fees for having to respond to the motion. In January 2021, the commissioner entered an order denying Shaun's motion to vacate and awarding Jenny attorney fees. Shaun moved to revise the commissioner's decision, which was also denied.

Shaun appeals the superior court's order denying his motion to revise.

Analysis

Shaun argues that the superior court erred in denying his motion to revise its order denying his motion to vacate the order enforcing the MQCO because the doctrine of federal preemption deprived the superior court of subject matter jurisdiction to assign his VA disability benefits, and therefore, the judgment is void. Jenny responds that under the doctrine of res judicata, the superior court properly enforced the final, unappealed 2017 dissolution decree incorporating the MQCO.^[1] We agree with Jenny.

Retired service...