Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.090
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) In a proceeding for dissolution of marriage or domestic partnership, legal separation, declaration of invalidity, or in a proceeding for maintenance following dissolution of the marriage or domestic partnership by a court which lacked personal jurisdiction over the absent spouse or absent domestic partner, the court may grant a maintenance order for either spouse or either domestic partner. 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.
Notes:
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 217
cases (54 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: In re Marriage of Wilcox
In re Marriage of Wilcox (2024)
“We hold that while a trial court must consider a requesting spouse’s need for support before awarding maintenance, among the other statutory factors listed in RCW 26.09.090, a finding of need is not a prerequisite to a maintenance award.”
In Re the Marriage of Washburn (1984)
“080, or in awarding maintenance pursuant to RCW 26.09.090. The Washburn court failed to consider Mrs.”
Matter of Marriage of Mathews (1993)
“Mathews $1,400 maintenance (payable until her death, remarriage or upon her obtaining full-time, gainful employment), the court specifically referenced the statutory factors: The Court has considered the factors set forth in fixing maintenance as enunciated in RCW 26.09.090 and…”
In Re Marriage of Morrow (1989)
“*585 RCW 26.09.090 permits awards of maintenance "in such amounts and for such periods of time as the court deems just".”
In re the Marriage of Spreen (2001)
“RCW 26.09.090 sets forth a nonexclusive list of factors the court shall consider in determining a spousal maintenance award.”
Spreen v. Spreen (2001)
“RCW 26.09.090 sets forth a nonexclusive list of factors the court shall consider in determining a spousal maintenance award.”
Wilson v. Wilson (2011)
“071's plain language requires a trial court to consider spousal maintenance "actually paid" and "actually received" in calculating a parent's income for purposes of determining child support obligations, the statute is silent as to whether a trial court must consider spousal…”
In re the Marriage of Wilson (2011)
“071’s plain language requires a trial court to consider spousal maintenance “actually paid” and “actually received” in calculating a parent’s income for purposes of determining child support obligations, the statute is silent as to whether a trial court must consider spousal…”
Heidi K. Kaplan v. Donald C. Kaplan (2018)
“"The only limitation on amount and duration of maintenance under RCW 26.09.090 is that, in light of the relevant factors, the award must be just.”
In re the Marriage of Mansour (2004)
“Nothing in RCW 26.09.090 requires the trial court to make specific factual findings on each of the factors listed in RCW 26.”
In the Matter of Marriage of Bulicek (1990)
“Janet contends that the trial court considered the statutory factors set forth in RCW 26.09.090 1 and acted within its discretion in awarding her $500 per month for 1 year and $400 per month until George retires.”
Mansour v. Mansour (2004)
“" [14] RCW 26.09.090 requires the trial court to consider, but not limit itself to the following factors: (a) The financial resources of the party seeking maintenance, including separate or community property apportioned to him, and his ability to meet his needs independently,…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.090(1) — 90 cases
In re the Marriage of Mansour (2004)
“Nothing in RCW 26.09.090 requires the trial court to make specific factual findings on each of the factors listed in RCW 26.”
In re Marriage of Wilcox (2024)
“We hold that while a trial court must consider a requesting spouse’s need for support before awarding maintenance, among the other statutory factors listed in RCW 26.09.090, a finding of need is not a prerequisite to a maintenance award.”
In Re Marriage of Morrow (1989)
“*585 RCW 26.09.090 permits awards of maintenance "in such amounts and for such periods of time as the court deems just".”
Matter of Marriage of Mathews (1993)
“Mathews $1,400 maintenance (payable until her death, remarriage or upon her obtaining full-time, gainful employment), the court specifically referenced the statutory factors: The Court has considered the factors set forth in fixing maintenance as enunciated in RCW 26.09.090 and…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.090(1)(a) — 38 cases
Wilson v. Wilson (2011)
“071's plain language requires a trial court to consider spousal maintenance "actually paid" and "actually received" in calculating a parent's income for purposes of determining child support obligations, the statute is silent as to whether a trial court must consider spousal…”
In Re Marriage of Morrow (1989)
“*585 RCW 26.09.090 permits awards of maintenance "in such amounts and for such periods of time as the court deems just".”
In Re the Marriage of Washburn (1984)
“080, or in awarding maintenance pursuant to RCW 26.09.090. The Washburn court failed to consider Mrs.”
In the Matter of Marriage of Bulicek (1990)
“Janet contends that the trial court considered the statutory factors set forth in RCW 26.09.090 1 and acted within its discretion in awarding her $500 per month for 1 year and $400 per month until George retires.”
Matter of Marriage of Mathews (1993)
“Mathews $1,400 maintenance (payable until her death, remarriage or upon her obtaining full-time, gainful employment), the court specifically referenced the statutory factors: The Court has considered the factors set forth in fixing maintenance as enunciated in RCW 26.09.090 and…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.090(1)(b) — 8 cases
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.090(1)(c) — 6 cases
Heidi K. Kaplan v. Donald C. Kaplan (2018)
“"The only limitation on amount and duration of maintenance under RCW 26.09.090 is that, in light of the relevant factors, the award must be just.”
In Re the Marriage of Washburn (1984)
“080, or in awarding maintenance pursuant to RCW 26.09.090. The Washburn court failed to consider Mrs.”
In Re Marriage of Morrow (1989)
“*585 RCW 26.09.090 permits awards of maintenance "in such amounts and for such periods of time as the court deems just".”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.090(1)(c)(d) — 1 case
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.090(1)(d) — 3 cases
In Re the Marriage of Fernau (1984)
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.090(1)(e) — 3 cases
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.090(1)(f) — 16 cases
In Re the Marriage of Washburn (1984)
“080, or in awarding maintenance pursuant to RCW 26.09.090. The Washburn court failed to consider Mrs.”
Matter of Marriage of Mathews (1993)
“Mathews $1,400 maintenance (payable until her death, remarriage or upon her obtaining full-time, gainful employment), the court specifically referenced the statutory factors: The Court has considered the factors set forth in fixing maintenance as enunciated in RCW 26.09.090 and…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.090(7) — 1 case
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.090(a) — 4 cases
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.090(c) — 1 case
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.090(d) — 1 case
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.090(e) — 2 cases
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.090(f) — 6 cases
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.090(l)(a) — 6 cases
In re the Marriage of Wilson (2011)
“071’s plain language requires a trial court to consider spousal maintenance “actually paid” and “actually received” in calculating a parent’s income for purposes of determining child support obligations, the statute is silent as to whether a trial court must consider spousal…”
In Re the Marriage of Washburn (1984)
“080, or in awarding maintenance pursuant to RCW 26.09.090. The Washburn court failed to consider Mrs.”
Matter of Marriage of Mathews (1993)
“Mathews $1,400 maintenance (payable until her death, remarriage or upon her obtaining full-time, gainful employment), the court specifically referenced the statutory factors: The Court has considered the factors set forth in fixing maintenance as enunciated in RCW 26.09.090 and…”
In Re the Marriage of Terry (1995)
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.090(l)(c) — 3 cases
In Re Marriage of Morrow (1989)
“*585 RCW 26.09.090 permits awards of maintenance "in such amounts and for such periods of time as the court deems just".”
In Re the Marriage of Fernau (1984)
Wagner v. Wagner (1980)
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.090(l)(f) — 2 cases
Matter of Marriage of Mathews (1993)
“Mathews $1,400 maintenance (payable until her death, remarriage or upon her obtaining full-time, gainful employment), the court specifically referenced the statutory factors: The Court has considered the factors set forth in fixing maintenance as enunciated in RCW 26.09.090 and…”
In re the Marriage of Lee (2013)
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.