Porter v. Porter: New Supreme Court Ruling in Family Law – What Does this Mean for You?
In one of only two published family law cases for the Washington Supreme Court in 2024, the Court held that a party’s post-dissolution promotion and salary increase could not be used to calculate the community portion of their retirement. (In re Marriage of Porter v Porter, No. 102355-3)
In this case, the husband had a long career in the military. When dividing assets, the court awarded the wife 30.25% of the husband’s disposable military retirement pay. Eight years after the divorce, the husband retired from the military and began working in the private sector. Fifteen years after the divorce, the husband was involuntarily recalled to active duty in Afghanistan. During this involuntary recall, the husband was promoted and earned a raise. Three years later, the husband retired again from active duty.
Ten years after his last retirement, the husband motions to the court asking to clarify his decree. He asks the court to confirm that the wife’s share of his retirement should be based on his first retirement and not his second.
The trial court disagreed with the husband. They held that the husband’s promotion and salary increase were due to his 17 years of community effort, and thus, the wife should benefit from that.
The Supreme Court Disagreed, holding that since his salary increase occurred 18 years post-dissolution, the community effort doctrine did not apply.
The Supreme Court discusses the community efforts doctrine by referencing the Bulicek case. In re Marriage of Bulicek, 59 Wn. App. 630. In this case, the parties were married for 22 years, and the husband worked for the same company. Four years after the parties separated, the husband became eligible for early retirement, but he chose not to retire. The court, in the dissolution, granted the wife a percentage of the husband’s monthly pension, which could increase based on whether the husband received a pay increase. The husband appealed, arguing that this awarded his wife separate property. The court disagreed, stating that because the parties were married for 22 years, and the husband had the same job for the entire marriage, his potential raises were attributed to community effort and performance.
In another case, Hurd, the court of appeals found that after a 16-year marriage, a husband’s salary increase shortly after separation should be considered the result of community efforts. Hurd v. Hurd, 69 Wn. App. 38.
The Supreme Court made a distinction in this case, stating that the husband’s second retirement raised a new question for the court. They argued that the increases to Porter’s monthly pension benefit were not earned shortly after the parties separated, nor did they directly result from community effort and performance. Instead, the increase in Porter’s retirement pay was earned following an involuntary recall occurring nearly 18 years after the divorce and 10 years after his first retirement in 2002.
The question raised by this case is: How long does the community effort doctrine last after a separation? The Court has ruled that 18 years is too long, and that four years is within the limit. Where should the line be drawn?
To learn more about Porter v. Porter: New Supreme Court Ruling in Family Law, please contact Beresford Booth at info@beresfordlaw.com or by phone at (425) 776-4100.