Opinion · Washington Court of Appeals Opinions
IN RE BAL v. SAHOTA, 146 Wn. App. 1010 (2008)
In the Matter of Marriage of RANJIT SINGH BAL, Appellant, andSANDEEP KAUR SAHOTA, Respondent., 146 Wash. App. 1010 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Washington Court of Appeals Opinions
- Jurisdiction
- Washington
- Date
- 2008-07-28
- Topic
- general
IN RE BAL v. SAHOTA, 146 Wn. App. 1010 (2008) In the Matter of the Marriage of RANJIT SINGH BAL, Appellant, andSANDEEP KAUR SAHOTA, Respondent. No. 59421-4-I.The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One. July 28, 2008. [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 03-3-06941-1, Laura Gene Middaugh, J., entered December 21, 2006.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed IN RE BAL v. SAHOTA, 146 Wn. App. 1010 (2008). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
IN RE BAL v. SAHOTA,146 Wn. App. 1010(2008)
In the Matter of the Marriage of RANJIT SINGH BAL, Appellant, and
SANDEEP KAUR SAHOTA, Respondent.
No. 59421-4-I.
The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One.
July 28, 2008.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 03-3-06941-1, Laura Gene Middaugh, J., entered December 21, 2006.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, andremandedby unpublished per curiam opinion.
[EDITORS' NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]
Ranjit Bal challenges portions of the decree dissolving his marriage to Sandeep Sahota. We conclude that the trial court did not err in entering a judgment for back child support. But because the trial court improperly allocated long-distance travel expenses, we reverse that portion of the child support order and remand for recalculation.1
Ranjit Bal and Sandeep Sahota were married in India in 1992. In 1996, Sahota left India and lived with Bal's parents in Canada, while Bal lived and worked primarily in Washington State. The couple's son, S.S., was born in 1997. Beginning in 2001, Sahota lived primarily with Bal in Washington, and the couple remarried in King County in December 2001.
On March 10, 2003, Sahota left the parties' home with S.S. and moved to Canada, where she continues to live. Bal filed a dissolution petition on September 3, 2003. On June 5, 2005, the court entered a temporary child support order. After several delays, including a delay for an interlocutory appeal while Bal sought to disqualify his attorney, the matter was tried in September 2006.
On October 26, 2006, the trial court entered final orders, including a dissolution decree, parenting plan, and child support order. The parenting plan provided that S.S. would reside a majority of the time with Sahota in Canada and that Bal could exercise his residential time in Canada or by flying S.S. to Seattle. Based on the standard calculation, the court set Bal's monthly transfer payment for child support at $443, which was 54 percent of the child support obligation, but ordered Bal to pay 80 percent of any long-distance travel expenses associated with his residential time. The court also entered a judgment for back child support of $19,389.81. Except for minor changes, the trial court denied Bal's motion for reconsideration on December 21, 2006.
Bal contends that the trial court erred in imposing a judgment for back child support for the period from September 2003, when he filed the dissolution petition, until May 2005, when Sahota moved for temporary support. He argues that the trial court should have applied the doctrine of equitable estoppel.
As the party asserting equitable estoppel, Bal was required to prove the following elements with clear, cogent, and convincing evidence: (1) that Sahota made an assertion or acted inconsistently with a claim for child support; (2) that Bal acted in reliance on Sahota's assertion or act; and (3) that Bal would be injured if Sahota were permitted to contradict or repudiate the statement or act.2But Sahota testified that she asked her attorney to seek support at an earlier time and that he failed to do so. Bal offered no evidence to the contrary. Under the circumstances, Sahota's actions did not involve an unreasonable delay and were not inconsistent with a claim for child support.
Nor has Bal demonstrated that he did anything in reliance on Sahota's alleged delay in seeking a temporary support order. Moreover, a party asserting the defense of equitable estoppel cannot establish resulting injury merely "by showing he is having to do now what he has been legally obligated to do for years."3Bal has not demonstrated any error in the trial court's failure to apply equitable estoppel.
Bal also appears to suggest that the trial court erred by calculating back child support based on the Washington Child Support Schedule rather than on Sahota's actual expenses. But he has not cited any relevant authority to support this suggestion. Indeed, Bal's dissolution petition expressly asked the court to determine child support based on the Washington Child Support Schedule. Bal has not shown any error in the calculation of the child support obligation.
Travel Expenses
Bal contends that the trial court erred by ordering him to pay 80 percent of long-distance travel costs arising from his residential time with S.S. when the ratio of the parents' incomes was 54/46. The trial court apparently changed the allocation based on its determination that Bal had concealed assets. Bal argues that the travel expenses must be allocated in the same proportion as the basic support obligation. We agree.
Long-distance travel expenses are considered extraordinary expenses not accounted for in the basic child support obligation.4Under RCW26.19.080(4), the trial court has discretion to determine the reasonableness and necessity of such extraordinary expenses. But RCW26.19.080(3) provides that these expenses "shall be shared by the parents in the same proportion as the basic child support obligation."5Consequently, once the court determines that extraordinary expenses are reasonable and necessary, "it is required to allocate them in proportion with the parents' income."6Washington courts have recognized an exception to this general rule only when the trial court has properly deviated from the standard child support calculation.7
Here, the trial court did not deviate from the standard calculation and used the parents' income ratio of 54/46 to set the child support obligation. But the court then improperly ordered Bal to pay 80 percent, rather than 54 percent, of the longdistance travel expenses. Accordingly, we vacate the relevant portion of the child support order and remand for recalculation.
The child support judgment is affirmed; we reverse only the allocation of longdistance travel expenses and remand for recalculation.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.
FACTS
During their testimony at trial, both parties made numerous allegations of misconduct by the other. But the trial court did not enter findings on most of these allegations, and we will refer only to those facts necessary to resolve the specific issues raised on appeal.
Ranjit Bal and Sandeep Sahota were married in India in 1992. In 1996, Sahota left India and lived with Bal's parents in Canada, while Bal lived and worked primarily in Washington State. The couple's son, S.S., was born in 1997. Beginning in 2001, Sahota lived primarily with Bal in Washington, and the couple remarried in King County in December 2001.
On March 10, 2003, Sahota left the parties' home with S.S. and moved to Canada, where she continues to live. Bal filed a dissolution petition on September 3, 2003. On June 5, 2005, the court entered a temporary child support order. After several delays, including a delay for an interlocutory appeal while Bal sought to disqualify his attorney, the matter was tried in September 2006.
On October 26, 2006, the trial court entered final orders, including a dissolution decree, parenting plan, and child support order. The parenting plan provided that S.S. would reside a majority of the time with Sahota in Canada and that Bal could exercise his residential time in Canada or by flying S.S. to Seattle. Based on the standard calculation, the court set Bal's monthly transfer payment for child support at $443, which was 54 percent of the child support obligation, but ordered Bal to pay 80 percent of any long-distance travel expenses associated with his residential time. The court also entered a judgment for back child support of $19,389.81. Except for minor changes, the trial court denied Bal's motion for reconsideration on December 21, 2006.
DECISION
Back Child Support
Bal contends that the trial court erred in imposing a judgment for back child support for the period from September 2003, when he filed the dissolution petition, until May 2005, when Sahota moved for temporary support. He argues that the trial court should have applied the doctrine of equitable estoppel.
As the party asserting equitable estoppel, Bal was required to prove the following elements with clear, cogent, and convincing evidence: (1) that Sahota made an assertion or acted inconsistently with a claim for child support; (2) that Bal acted in reliance on Sahota's assertion or act; and (3) that Bal would be injured if Sahota were permitted to contradict or repudiate the statement or act.2But Sahota testified that she asked her attorney to seek support at an earlier time and that he failed to do so. Bal offered no evidence to the contrary. Under the circumstances, Sahota's actions did not involve an unreasonable delay and were not inconsistent with a claim for child support.
Nor has Bal demonstrated that he did anything in reliance on Sahota's alleged delay in seeking a temporary support order. Moreover, a party asserting the defense of equitable estoppel cannot establish resulting injury merely "by showing he is having to do now what he has been legally obligated to do for years."3Bal has not demonstrated any error in the trial court's failure to apply equitable estoppel.
Bal also appears to suggest that the trial court erred by calculating back child support based on the Washington Child Support Schedule rather than on Sahota's actual expenses. But he has not cited any relevant authority to support this suggestion. Indeed, Bal's dissolution petition expressly asked the court to determine child support based on the Washington Child Support Schedule. Bal has not shown any error in the calculation of the child support obligation.
Travel Expenses
Bal contends that the trial court erred by ordering him to pay 80 percent of long-distance travel costs arising from his residential time with S.S. when the ratio of the parents' incomes was 54/46. The trial court apparently changed the allocation based on its determination that Bal had concealed assets. Bal argues that the travel expenses must be allocated in the same proportion as the basic support obligation. We agree.
Long-distance travel expenses are considered extraordinary expenses not accounted for in the basic child support obligation.4Under RCW26.19.080(4), the trial court has discretion to determine the reasonableness and necessity of such extraordinary expenses. But RCW26.19.080(3) provides that these expenses "shall be shared by the parents in the same proportion as the basic child support obligation."5Consequently, once the court determines that extraordinary expenses are reasonable and necessary, "it is required to allocate them in proportion with the parents' income."6Washington courts have recognized an exception to this general rule only when the trial court has properly deviated from the standard child support calculation.7
Here, the trial court did not deviate from the standard calculation and used the parents' income ratio of 54/46 to set the child support obligation. But the court then improperly ordered Bal to pay 80 percent, rather than 54 percent, of the longdistance travel expenses. Accordingly, we vacate the relevant portion of the child support order and remand for recalculation.
The child support judgment is affirmed; we reverse only the allocation of longdistance travel expenses and remand for recalculation.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.
- [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] ↩
- Sahota did not appear or submit any response to Bal's appeal. ↩
- See In re Marriage of Capetillo,85 Wn. App. 311,320,932 P.2d 691(1997) (rejecting laches and equitable estoppel defenses to action for past-due child support). ↩
- Capetillo,85 Wn. App. at 318. ↩
- See RCW26.19.080(1), (3); see also In re Yeamans,117 Wn. App. 593,599,72 P.3d 775(2003). ↩
- See Murphy v. Miller,85 Wn. App. 345,932 P.2d 722(1997); In re Paternity of Hewitt,98 Wn. App. 85,988 P.2d 496(1999). ↩
- Yeamans,117 Wn. App. at 600. ↩
- See In re Marriage of Casey,88 Wn. App. 662,967 P.2d 982(1997); Hewitt,98 Wn. App. at 89-90; Yeamen,117 Wn. App. at 600-01. ↩