74 total
The decree states that personal property you have or control is awarded to you. However, the personal property was located in your parent's shed, so there may be dispute as to whether the decree term applies since it was in your parent's possession, and possibly their legal control.
The decree, separately or combined with other filed orders, may show it was mutually understood that your parent's were simply storing it on your behalf and you had sole legal control of the property, and/or there was mutual intent to award that property to you. In that case, the property award applies. If not, he could adjudicate the issue. A lawyer would need to know more facts before offering an opinion.
What he cannot do, however, is unilaterally (or send others on his behalf) attempt to retrieve the personal property he now claims is his, and/or trespass on your parent's property, especially given his history of violence. He needs to address any legal dispute in court. If/when you call law enforcement, that's exactly what they should tell him.
You will need to clarify the facts before a solid answer can be given. That said, assuming you have a "split-custody" (i.e., 50/50 shared residential) parenting plan order from Washington State that includes standard joint decision-making for educational decisions, a change in schools will require agreement of both parties. Even if you don't, however, unless the parenting plan order provides otherwise, an opposed change in schools will typically require filing a petition for modification and subsequent court order authorizing the change in schools before it can be done. It is not in your child's best interests to keep moving from one school to another without a good legal basis for it, and mere disagreement on an unrelated issue is clearly not enough.
A Washington State Family Law Court generally has the legal authority to modify a parenting plan or custody decree if the party seeking modification can provide a legal basis (i.e., "adequate cause") to do so. The full scope of legal bases to justify a modification action are in Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 26.09.260). If, at the show cause hearing, the court rules there is a legal basis (i.e., "adequate cause") to modify the plan, the case moves to the discovery stage where information is obtained for purposes of settlement and, if necessary, trial.
In King County, and many other counties, following the discovery stage and prior to the trial date, the parties must attempt to resolve disputed issues through a form of alternate dispute resolution (i.e., mediation or arbitration). However, unless the parties agree to arbitrate, mediation must be attempted instead. Arbitration is not mandated. It is optional and requires both parties' agreement.
The above responses are correct.
To elaborate further, "commingling" is defined as the intermixing of both separate and community property to the extent the source of the separate property (i.e., inheritance) can no longer be traced and identified. In such cases, the account is presumed to be entirely community property. For example, if the check from the estate is deposited into a joint account and numerous withdrawals from and deposits of community earnings into the account make it impossible to accurately trace a portion of the account back to the inheritance check, it will be considered "commingled". To prevent commingling, it is advisable to keep all inheritance records such as the estate's cancelled check, will, and probate documents, deposit inheritance proceeds into a separate account, and not make any community deposits into it. For additional information on commingling, see In re Marriage of Skarbek.
Property acquired by inheritance during the marriage is seperate property. However, that doesn't mean she automatically gets everything she inherited.
Washington courts distribute all property and debts based on what is "just and equitable" based on a number of factors, including duration of marriage, economic circumstances of both parties, and community and seperate property. Depending on your case facts, it is possible a court would award you a greater share of the community property to offset the value of the inherited property, or divide the inherited property.
This is an excellent question (legal research and writing is a one year law school course).
Finding case law that is helpful to your case requires a certain amount of legal research knowledge. A local law library at a law school or courthouse is an excellent source for information. LexisNexis also provides legal research support.
Regarding your specific question, "Wn.App." is the citation for Washington Appellate Reports, the name of a publisher of Washington appellate court decisions. The number "73" is the volume number, "201" is the page number of the court decision, and "209" is the page number within the court decision containing the specific issue you're looking up.
All assets, including retirement, and debts acquired during a marriage are presumed to be community property. Each spouse has a 50% interest in it regardless of who earned it. The judge must have determined, despite you taking on those debts, a 50/50 division of the retirement was a "just and equitable" property division under Washington Law. If you believe the decision was contrary to law, you should seek an attorney for advice on a possible appeal.
Your wife can't unilaterally kick you out of your family home for refusing to sign any documents. Unless there is domestic violence or similar abuse involved, you can only be removed from the home by a court order as part of a divorce action.
Also, regarding those valuables, if they were bought with income earned during the marriage and were not gifted to her (for example, jewelry), then she's selling community property and you're entitled to 1/2 of those proceeds. I suggest you seek an attorney for a consult to know your legal rights.
The short answer is spousal maintenance, which are payments to the spouse to pay his/her expenses, are includible as income to the recipient and a deduction to the payor. Child support, payments intended to pay for children's expenses, is not.
However, since spousal maintenance and child support are authorized by different laws, based on different public policy, and have different tax treatment, ordering spousal maintenance to be paid in the form of child support makes no legal sense. I advise you to consult with an attorney who perhaps can clarify and/or make sense out of the order and give you a firm answer.
You may file a motion for contempt under these circumstances or a motion to enforce the decree. I have provided a link with further information and forms.