When a married couple divorces, the starting point for property division in most states is usually a presumption that their assets will be split equally. Of course facts in a particular case can adjust that presumption. If, for instance, one spouse has significant medical problems he or she might receive a greater portion of the couple’s assets. Not only will the ill spouse require additional care, but his or her ability to self-support may also be limited. Sometimes, however, the courts may consider the illness as part of a larger picture, permitting a reduction in the ill spouse’s share.

That was the situation when Washington residents Jeffery and Rhonda Staley divorced. The couple had been married for a decade, and they had two minor children. They had also managed to amass a combined estate valued at about one million dollars.

Rhonda Staley had suffered from a disabling mental illness for her entire life, and had received Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits before she married Jeffery. She had several episodes of hospitalization or incarceration during the marriage and the pendency of the divorce.

A special needs attorney appointed as her guardian ad litem (that is, as a spokesperson for her best interests) testified that she needed to have 60% to 70% of the couple’s assets assigned to her. In order to provide for her needs beyond what would be available from government benefits, he testified that her larger share of the couple’s assets should be paid to a special needs trust.

There was one other important wrinkle in the Staley’s financial life. Both minor children also suffered from disabling conditions. Their now twelve-year-old son is developmentally delayed, has learning disabilities and profound hearing loss; he requires 24-hour supervision. Their seven-year-old daughter has problems with speech and reading. Babysitting expenses alone cost husband Jeffery Staley (who was given custody of the children) $2,000 per month.

In those facts, the trial judge decided that the majority of the couple’s assets should be assigned to Jeffery despite Rhonda’s high care needs. About 64% of the assets were awarded to Jeffery; the balance were ordered into Rhonda’s special needs trust. The trial judge specifically assumed that Rhonda would then once again qualify for SSI benefits, and "only the father is going to be in a position to take care of the children financially."

The Washington Court of Appeal, in an unpublished decision, upheld the division of the couple’s assets. It also upheld the trial court’s order that only $30,000 of the fees of Rhonda’s guardian ad litem and attorney should be charged to Jeffery. Staley v. Staley, April 28, 2008. 

Would you like to subscribe to Elder Law Issues? Simply provide your e-mail address and name below, and click "Subscribe". At the same time, you may choose to also subscribe to The Voice, the newsletter of the Special Needs Alliance.

Privacy note: We do not ever use your e-mail address or name for any purpose other than to send out our subscription-based newsletter. You can rest assured that we will not sell, trade or share this information with any other person or entity. We have no ancillary or associated companies or entities to which we could provide your e-mail address, either.

© 1993-2009 Fleming & Curti, P.L.C.
330 N. Granada Avenue, Tucson, Arizona 85701
520-622-0400 /  FAX: 520-203-0240