In Re Marriage of Wright

In Re Marriage of Wright: The husband said the wife had better finances, but the court pointed to his estimated earnings until his anticipated retirement.

By Diana Shepherd, CDFA®Updated: December 23, 2019

In Re Marriage of Wright: The husband said the wife had better finances, but the court pointed to his estimated earnings until his anticipated retirement.

By Christina A. Meserve and Charles E. Szurszewski, family lawyers

In Re Marriage of Wright: The husband claimed that the wife was actually in a better financial position, but the Court of Appeals pointed to the husband’s estimated earnings until his anticipated retirement.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s division of property and award of spousal maintenance as being within the court’s discretion.

The wife was awarded $8.5 million in community property plus a $1.7 million payment from the husband. The husband was awarded $8.6 million in community property and $980,000 in separate property, less the $1.7 million “equalizing” payment. The wife was also awarded $1 million in spousal maintenance spread over three years.

The parties had been married for more than 30 years, had eight children together, and the husband earned a minimum of $4 million annually. The court anticipated that he would work for a minimum of 2-1/2 years after the dissolution. The husband claimed that the wife was actually in a better financial position, but the Court of Appeals pointed to the husband’s estimated earnings until his anticipated retirement.

One of the interesting issues was the date on which the marriage became defunct. Apparently, Dr. Wright moved to Alaska in November 2007. The parties continued to socialize together, and Dr. Wright regularly traveled between the family home and Alaska. Even after Dr. Wright announced in October 2010 that he had a pregnant girlfriend in Alaska, “neither party expressly renounced the marriage.” Thus, the court apparently concluded that the surgery practice that Dr. Wright established in Alaska between 2007 and 2011 was a community asset.

Christina A. Meserve and Charles E. Szurszewski practice family law in Olympia, Washington with the law firm of Connolly Tacon & Meserve.

Clearing up the “quagmire” of impermissible double counting.

Categories:

Published on: July 11, 2014

About the Author

Diana Shepherd, CDFA®

Diana Shepherd has over 30 years of experience as a marketing, branding, SEO, copywriting, editing, and publishing expert. As Content Director for Family Lawyer Magazine, Divorce Magazine, and Divorce Marketing Group, she oversees all corporate content development and frequently creates SEO-friendly videos, podcasts, and copy for family law and financial firms. The Co-Founder of Divorce Magazine and Divorce Marketing Group, Diana is an award-winning editor, published author, and a nationally recognized expert on divorce, remarriage, finance, and stepfamily issues. She has written hundreds of articles geared towards both family law professionals and divorcing people, and she has both performed and taught on-page SEO for 20+ years. Diana spent eight years as the Marketing Director for the Institute for Divorce Financial Analysts® (IDFA®), and she has been a Certified Divorce Financial Analyst® since 2006. While at IDFA, she wrote, designed, and published The IDFA Marketing Guide, and she also created seminars for CDFA professionals to present to family lawyers (approved for CLE), as well as to separated and divorcing individuals. She has represented both DMG and IDFA at industry conferences and events across North America, and she has given marketing as well as divorce financial seminars at many of those conferences.

In Re Marriage of Wright