FILED JUNE 30, 2020 In the Office of the Clerk of Court WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE
In the Matter of the Marriage of ) ) No. 36577-8-III MARIE LOUISE MANEAU ) ) Respondent, ) ) and ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) MARCUS JAMES MANEAU, ) ) Appellant. )
KORSMO, J. — Marcus Maneau appeals the judgment entered following the
dissolution of his marriage to respondent Marie Maneau. We affirm the decree, but deny
respondent’s request for attorney fees.
FACTS
The couple began dating in 1976 and began living together in New Orleans in
1977. He had served in the U.S. Army between 1970 and 1973, and then began working
for Kaiser Aluminum in Louisiana. A Kaiser job opening led Mr. Maneau to transfer to
Spokane in 1987; respondent followed him less than one year later. He bought a house in
Spokane in 1991 and paid it off in 2003 when he retired. The house was listed solely in
Mr. Maneau’s name. No. 36577-8-III In re Marriage of Maneau
While the couple had no children together, Mr. Maneau assisted with raising Ms.
Maneau’s two children. The couple shared income, split household bills, travelled
together, and shared life experiences. Ms. Maneau paid for a new roof on their house out
of her retirement fund, while Mr. Maneau painted the house. They held themselves out to
the community as a couple and believed they would live together forever.
The couple married in 2000. In 2010, Ms. Maneau’s daughter passed away after
giving birth to a severely disabled child, J.M. The couple adopted J.M., whose
disabilities require constant medical care and supervision. Ms. Maneau retired from work
in 2014. In 2016, Mr. Maneau experienced a stroke that affects his ability to speak. His
behavior changed and Ms. Maneau became concerned that he could not provide
appropriate care for J.M.
After Ms. Maneau filed a petition to dissolve the marriage in 2017, both sides
retained counsel. However, Mr. Maneau discharged his counsel and represented himself
at trial, apparently due to disagreements with his attorney. A significant focus of the trial
involved identifying the proper custodian for J.M. Mr. Maneau also argued that he
should receive the house or a financial share from the property.
The court determined Mr. Maneau received monthly income from social security,
Veteran’s Affairs (VA) disability, and a Kaiser pension. Ms. Maneau received her own
monthly social security. As J.M.’s primary caretaker, Ms. Maneau received adoption
2 No. 36577-8-III In re Marriage of Maneau
support and a separate social security income meant for J.M.’s care. Ms. Maneau’s total
monthly income constituted about one-fifth of Mr. Maneau’s monthly income.
The court awarded Ms. Maneau custody of J.M. with several weekly visits for Mr.
Maneau. Mr. Maneau was ordered to pay child support and spousal support.1 The court
awarded Ms. Maneau the house to care for J.M. and divided household goods and bank
accounts between the couple, taking note of separate property from inheritances. Mr.
Maneau was ordered to pay half of Ms. Maneau’s attorney fees.
ANALYSIS
This appeal raises six arguments, which we address as five issues in the following
order: (1) existence of a committed intimate relationship, (2) property distribution and
award of the house, (3) possible child support offset, (4) spousal support award, and (5)
attorney fee award.2
1 The spousal support order ends with the death of J.M. 2 Mr. Maneau asks that we consider this appeal with an understanding that his stroke could have inhibited his trial performance. A pro se litigant normally is held to the same standard as an attorney. Carver v. State, 147 Wn. App. 567, 575, 197 P.3d 678 (2008). This standard may not apply to a pro se litigant who is suffering from a known mental disability. Id. If one is incompetent, an appointed guardian may bring legal actions on the incompetent individual’s behalf. RCW 11.92.060. If there is expert opinion that Mr. Maneau was not competent at trial, a guardian could seek relief from judgment for a person of unsound mind. CR 60(b)(2). This issue is not before us in this appeal and we do not further opine whether such a motion might succeed. Although we have no expert testimony suggesting that he was incompetent at trial, we have liberally considered his trial arguments to avoid waiver of his appellate arguments.
3 No. 36577-8-III In re Marriage of Maneau
Committed Intimate Relationship
A committed intimate relationship exists when a couple intentionally cohabites in
a stable, marital-like relationship, but without a lawful marriage. Connell v. Francisco,
127 Wn.2d 339, 346, 898 P.2d 831 (1995). We review the trial court’s determination that
such a relationship existed for abuse of discretion. In re Long and Fregeau, 158 Wn.
App. 919, 928, 244 P.3d 26 (2010). Discretion is abused when it is exercised on
untenable grounds or for untenable reasons. State ex rel. Carroll v. Junker, 79 Wn.2d 12,
26, 482 P.2d 775 (1971).
The circumstances a court may consider when making a committed intimate
relationship finding include, but are not limited to: “continuous cohabitation, duration of
the relationship, purpose of the relationship, pooling of resources and services for joint
projects, and the intent of the parties.” In re Marriage of Pennington, 142 Wn.2d 592,
603, 14 P.3d 764 (2000). Continuous cohabitation does not mean uninterrupted, but
usually requires the parties consistently live with each other without other partners. Id.
Maneau stresses that some financial matters were kept separate, but the committed
intimate relationship finding requires a comprehensive review of the entire relationship
rather than just one element. During their 40 years together, they consistently lived with
each other as a married couple. They jointly paid household bills and raised the children.
A witness testified that the couple appeared as husband and wife to others.
4 No. 36577-8-III In re Marriage of Maneau
The trial court properly examined the party’s conduct during the approximately 22
years spent together before marriage. The evidence supports the trial court’s finding that
a committed intimate relationship existed before the marriage.
Property Distribution and Award of the House
Mr. Maneau challenges the characterization of the house and the ensuing property
distribution. The trial court wrestled with a difficult decision and did not abuse its
discretion.
All property is before the court for distribution in dissolution proceedings and the
trial court must characterize the property as community or separate. Brewer v. Brewer,
137 Wn.2d 756, 766, 976 P.2d 102 (1999); Baker v. Baker, 80 Wn.2d 736, 745, 498 P.2d
315 (1972). We review property characterization rulings de novo. In re Marriage of
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
FILED JUNE 30, 2020 In the Office of the Clerk of Court WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE
In the Matter of the Marriage of ) ) No. 36577-8-III MARIE LOUISE MANEAU ) ) Respondent, ) ) and ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) MARCUS JAMES MANEAU, ) ) Appellant. )
KORSMO, J. — Marcus Maneau appeals the judgment entered following the
dissolution of his marriage to respondent Marie Maneau. We affirm the decree, but deny
respondent’s request for attorney fees.
FACTS
The couple began dating in 1976 and began living together in New Orleans in
1977. He had served in the U.S. Army between 1970 and 1973, and then began working
for Kaiser Aluminum in Louisiana. A Kaiser job opening led Mr. Maneau to transfer to
Spokane in 1987; respondent followed him less than one year later. He bought a house in
Spokane in 1991 and paid it off in 2003 when he retired. The house was listed solely in
Mr. Maneau’s name. No. 36577-8-III In re Marriage of Maneau
While the couple had no children together, Mr. Maneau assisted with raising Ms.
Maneau’s two children. The couple shared income, split household bills, travelled
together, and shared life experiences. Ms. Maneau paid for a new roof on their house out
of her retirement fund, while Mr. Maneau painted the house. They held themselves out to
the community as a couple and believed they would live together forever.
The couple married in 2000. In 2010, Ms. Maneau’s daughter passed away after
giving birth to a severely disabled child, J.M. The couple adopted J.M., whose
disabilities require constant medical care and supervision. Ms. Maneau retired from work
in 2014. In 2016, Mr. Maneau experienced a stroke that affects his ability to speak. His
behavior changed and Ms. Maneau became concerned that he could not provide
appropriate care for J.M.
After Ms. Maneau filed a petition to dissolve the marriage in 2017, both sides
retained counsel. However, Mr. Maneau discharged his counsel and represented himself
at trial, apparently due to disagreements with his attorney. A significant focus of the trial
involved identifying the proper custodian for J.M. Mr. Maneau also argued that he
should receive the house or a financial share from the property.
The court determined Mr. Maneau received monthly income from social security,
Veteran’s Affairs (VA) disability, and a Kaiser pension. Ms. Maneau received her own
monthly social security. As J.M.’s primary caretaker, Ms. Maneau received adoption
2 No. 36577-8-III In re Marriage of Maneau
support and a separate social security income meant for J.M.’s care. Ms. Maneau’s total
monthly income constituted about one-fifth of Mr. Maneau’s monthly income.
The court awarded Ms. Maneau custody of J.M. with several weekly visits for Mr.
Maneau. Mr. Maneau was ordered to pay child support and spousal support.1 The court
awarded Ms. Maneau the house to care for J.M. and divided household goods and bank
accounts between the couple, taking note of separate property from inheritances. Mr.
Maneau was ordered to pay half of Ms. Maneau’s attorney fees.
ANALYSIS
This appeal raises six arguments, which we address as five issues in the following
order: (1) existence of a committed intimate relationship, (2) property distribution and
award of the house, (3) possible child support offset, (4) spousal support award, and (5)
attorney fee award.2
1 The spousal support order ends with the death of J.M. 2 Mr. Maneau asks that we consider this appeal with an understanding that his stroke could have inhibited his trial performance. A pro se litigant normally is held to the same standard as an attorney. Carver v. State, 147 Wn. App. 567, 575, 197 P.3d 678 (2008). This standard may not apply to a pro se litigant who is suffering from a known mental disability. Id. If one is incompetent, an appointed guardian may bring legal actions on the incompetent individual’s behalf. RCW 11.92.060. If there is expert opinion that Mr. Maneau was not competent at trial, a guardian could seek relief from judgment for a person of unsound mind. CR 60(b)(2). This issue is not before us in this appeal and we do not further opine whether such a motion might succeed. Although we have no expert testimony suggesting that he was incompetent at trial, we have liberally considered his trial arguments to avoid waiver of his appellate arguments.
3 No. 36577-8-III In re Marriage of Maneau
Committed Intimate Relationship
A committed intimate relationship exists when a couple intentionally cohabites in
a stable, marital-like relationship, but without a lawful marriage. Connell v. Francisco,
127 Wn.2d 339, 346, 898 P.2d 831 (1995). We review the trial court’s determination that
such a relationship existed for abuse of discretion. In re Long and Fregeau, 158 Wn.
App. 919, 928, 244 P.3d 26 (2010). Discretion is abused when it is exercised on
untenable grounds or for untenable reasons. State ex rel. Carroll v. Junker, 79 Wn.2d 12,
26, 482 P.2d 775 (1971).
The circumstances a court may consider when making a committed intimate
relationship finding include, but are not limited to: “continuous cohabitation, duration of
the relationship, purpose of the relationship, pooling of resources and services for joint
projects, and the intent of the parties.” In re Marriage of Pennington, 142 Wn.2d 592,
603, 14 P.3d 764 (2000). Continuous cohabitation does not mean uninterrupted, but
usually requires the parties consistently live with each other without other partners. Id.
Maneau stresses that some financial matters were kept separate, but the committed
intimate relationship finding requires a comprehensive review of the entire relationship
rather than just one element. During their 40 years together, they consistently lived with
each other as a married couple. They jointly paid household bills and raised the children.
A witness testified that the couple appeared as husband and wife to others.
4 No. 36577-8-III In re Marriage of Maneau
The trial court properly examined the party’s conduct during the approximately 22
years spent together before marriage. The evidence supports the trial court’s finding that
a committed intimate relationship existed before the marriage.
Property Distribution and Award of the House
Mr. Maneau challenges the characterization of the house and the ensuing property
distribution. The trial court wrestled with a difficult decision and did not abuse its
discretion.
All property is before the court for distribution in dissolution proceedings and the
trial court must characterize the property as community or separate. Brewer v. Brewer,
137 Wn.2d 756, 766, 976 P.2d 102 (1999); Baker v. Baker, 80 Wn.2d 736, 745, 498 P.2d
315 (1972). We review property characterization rulings de novo. In re Marriage of
Chumbley, 150 Wn.2d 1, 5, 74 P.3d 129 (2003). Similar standards are applied to
characterize property from a committed intimate relationship. In re Marriage of Lindsey,
101 Wn.2d 299, 304-306, 678 P.2d 328 (1984). This division of property must be just
and equitable. Id. at 304. Once the trial court makes a determination that a committed
intimate relationship exists, it then (1) evaluates the interest each party has in the property
acquired during the relationship, and (2) distributes the property in a just and equitable
manner. Id.
The distribution does not have to be equal. Washburn v. Washburn, 101 Wn.2d
168, 179, 677 P.2d 152 (1984). After a long term marriage (over 25 years), the court’s
5 No. 36577-8-III In re Marriage of Maneau
primary goal is to establish equal financial footing for both individuals for the rest of
their lives. In re Marriage of Doneen, 197 Wn. App. 941, 949, 391 P.3d 594 (2017). We
review the distribution for abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of Rockwell, 141 Wn.
App. 235, 242-244, 170 P.3d 572 (2007).
Various presumptions aid courts in determining whether property is community or
separate. In re Estate of Borghi, 167 Wn.2d 480, 483-484, 219 P.3d 932 (2009). The date
of acquisition is the primary determinant. Id. at 484. Once the characterization is made,
the property presumptively retains that character until such time as it has been overcome
with evidence of an intent to change that characterization. Id. at 484-485, 491-492. The
presumption can be overcome by clear and convincing evidence. Id. at 484 n.4.
When property is acquired by a party during a committed intimate relationship, it
also is presumptively jointly owned by both parties. In re Estate of Langeland, 177 Wn.
App. 315, 324-325, 312 P.3d 657 (2013). This presumption can be overcome by clear
and convincing evidence showing the separate nature of the funds used to acquire the
property. Id. at 325. The fact that the property title only has one party’s name is
irrelevant to this analysis. Connell, 127 Wn.2d at 352.
While Mr. Maneau did not directly argue the house constituted separate property,
he argued throughout trial that he paid for the house and should receive the property. We
consider this sufficient to preserve the issue for appellate review. The evidence from trial
establishes the house was purchased in 1991 using Mr. Maneau’s income. Mr. Maneau's
6 No. 36577-8-III In re Marriage of Maneau
income was earned during the committed intimate relationship. He used his retirement
funds to pay off the mortgage in 2003. Since the pair was in a committed intimate
relationship when the house was purchased, it is presumptively treated as jointly-owned
regardless of the title designation. Mr. Maneau did not overcome this presumption at
trial. No evidence suggested Mr. Maneau used separate funds to pay for the house.
Since it properly considered the house as community-like property, the trial court
did not abuse its discretion by awarding it to Ms. Maneau. She needed the house to care
for J.M. and lacked the financial means to obtain a different residence. Mr. Maneau had
far greater income than Ms. Maneau. Because J.M. needed the house and Ms. Maneau
was the primary caretaker, the court understandably awarded the house to her.
The award of the couple’s major asset to one party necessarily skewed the
property distribution. With the house going to Ms. Maneau, and few other significant
assets to divide, the trial court was in a difficult position. The court made strong efforts
to attempt to put each party in a fair position. We discern no abuse of discretion in the
property award.
Child Support Offset
We review child support orders for abuse of discretion. Matter of Marriage of
Booth, 114 Wn.2d 772, 776, 791 P.2d 519 (1990). A party must object to the substance
of a support order to preserve the matter for appeal. In re G.W.-F., 170 Wn. App. 631,
649, 285 P.3d 208 (2012). RCW 26.18.190(2) requires a mandatory child support offset
7 No. 36577-8-III In re Marriage of Maneau
of social security disability or retirement benefits from the parent that are paid on account
of the child. In re Parentage of Fairbanks, 142 Wn. App. 950, 956, 176 P.3d 611 (2008).
Trial courts must add the social security income from the parent that is paid directly to
the child to that parent’s income. Id. This income is then considered part of the parent’s
child support obligation. Id. The court abuses its discretion if it fails to offset the
parent’s support payments when required by RCW 26.18.190(2). Id. at 956-957.
Mr. Maneau never presented evidence that any portion of his social security went
to J.M. and never raised the issue at trial. The trial record does not establish what
portions, if any, of J.M.’s social security came from each parent. The record lacks the
sufficient evidence to establish whether a payment offset is appropriate. Mr. Maneau
also has not provided any authority suggesting that an offset is appropriate due to the
adoption support payments. The trial court did not err in its child support order.
Spousal Maintenance
The trial court has broad discretion to award spousal support and will be upheld on
appeal absent abuse of discretion. Bulicek v. Bulicek, 59 Wn. App. 630, 633, 800 P.2d
394 (1990). Factors the trial court may consider when setting spousal support include the
party’s resources (including child support and income), ability to gain appropriate
employment, standard of living during marriage, duration of marriage, age/physical
8 No. 36577-8-III In re Marriage of Maneau
condition of parties, and ensuring parties can meet financial requirements. RCW
26.09.090(1)(a)-(f). After a marriage lasting over 25 years, the court’s primary goal is to
ensure each party is in a financially stable position for the rest of their lives. Doneen, 197
Wn. App. at 949. The court may use spousal support to mitigate financial disparity
between the parties. In re Marriage of Morrow, 53 Wn. App. 579, 587-588, 770 P.2d
197 (1989).
The evidence overwhelmingly established income disparity. Ms. Maneau received
very little income and had to care for J.M. Mr. Maneau received about five times more
income. The court reasonably determined both parties were retired due to their advanced
age, making any debate about possible further employment inapplicable. The court
sought to ensure stable living conditions after a 40-year relationship. The trial court
reasonably set spousal support to ensure stable living conditions for Ms. Maneau while
also leaving sufficient income for Mr. Maneau.
Attorney Fees
Attorney fee awards are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Matter of Marriage of
Crosetto, 82 Wn. App. 545, 563, 918 P.2d 954 (1996). The trial court may award
reasonable attorney fees to a party in a domestic matter based on financial need. RCW
26.09.140. The court may also award attorney fees when a party is intransigent at trial,
9 No. 36577-8-III In re Marriage of Maneau
which includes “foot-dragging, obstructing, filing unnecessary or frivolous motions,
refusing to cooperate with the opposing party, noncompliance with discovery requests,
and any other conduct that makes the proceeding unduly difficult or costly.” Wixom v.
Wixom, 190 Wn. App. 719, 725, 360 P.3d 960 (2015). The trial court may award
attorney fees due to both intransigence and financial need. Mattson v. Mattson, 95 Wn.
App. 592, 604-605, 976 P.2d 157 (1999).
Without reaching the issue of intransigence, we affirm the attorney fee award due
to Ms. Maneau’s demonstrated financial need. Mr. Maneau had greater income and
received more liquid assets.3 The court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Ms.
Maneau a portion of her requested fees.
Based on the evidence in the record before us, we find the trial court did not abuse
its discretion through these proceedings.
Ms. Maneau requests this court order attorney fees on appeal, contending that the
appeal was frivolous and that she has financial need. RCW 26.09.140. We deny this
request. The appeal was not frivolous and there was no timely request for a fee award.
RAP 18.1.
3 While the house was the largest asset, forcing Ms. Maneau to sell this property would defeat the court’s intent in awarding the house to Ms. Maneau for raising J.M.
10 No. 36577-8-III In re Marriage of Maneau
Affirmed.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to
RCW 2.06.040.
_________________________________ Korsmo, A.C.J. WE CONCUR:
_________________________________ Fearing, J.
_________________________________ Siddoway, J.