Attorney reviewed by Sara Kim, a Washington-admitted attorney who handles the firm's family law matters. Last updated July 24, 2026.
Washington courts dividing property in a dissolution are not confined to what remains in the accounts on the morning of trial. RCW 26.09.080 requires a just and equitable division, and how each spouse handled the marital estate on the way to the courthouse belongs in that calculation. A Division II decision filed July 14, 2026 applied that rule to a husband who lost several hundred thousand dollars of the couple's retirement savings day trading, then affirmed both the property division and the maintenance award entered against him.
A spouse who speculates away community assets does not simply shrink the pool that gets divided. Responsibility for dissipating marital assets is relevant to how the remainder is distributed, which can leave the other spouse with a larger share of a smaller estate. In Zemke v. Zemke, the trial court weighed that history openly, and the Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion in the split or in the maintenance obligation that followed.
What Washington Courts Actually Divide
Washington is a community property state, and RCW 26.09.080 puts the whole estate in front of the judge. Community property and separate property are both before the court, and the statute directs consideration of four things:
- The nature and extent of the community property
- The nature and extent of the separate property
- The duration of the marriage or domestic partnership
- The economic circumstances of each spouse when the division becomes effective
No single factor controls, including the character of the property itself. That is what people most often get wrong when they assume a Washington divorce means an even split, or that separate property is automatically off the table. Neither is the rule, and our family law practice spends a good deal of time correcting both assumptions early.
Dissipating Marital Assets Is Part of the Just and Equitable Analysis
Dissipation is the loss or waste of community assets by one spouse through conduct that does not benefit the marriage. Washington courts have held for decades that each party's responsibility for creating or dissipating marital assets is relevant to a just and equitable distribution, a rule stated in In re Marriage of Williams and applied since.
That principle does not require proof of bad motive. The question is what happened to the estate and who was responsible for it, not whether the spending was malicious. Gambling losses, an unsecured loan to a relative, a business run into the ground, and speculative trading can all qualify.
The family law attorneys at Blair Kim Moeller see this most often in long marriages across King and Snohomish Counties, where one spouse managed the investments and the other did not look closely until the marriage was ending.
What Division II Affirmed in July 2026
The marriage in Zemke lasted 34 years. The husband retired from an engineering career in 2020, the couple bought a hay farm, and he traded the stock market with funds drawn from their retirement accounts and a home equity line of credit on their Black Diamond home. He lost a significant portion of those retirement funds, including after the parties separated, and both spouses returned to work.
On appeal he argued the trial court had valued the property incorrectly, should not have ordered spousal maintenance, and should not have made him pay his wife's attorney fees under RCW 26.09.140. The Court of Appeals rejected each argument. The trial court had heard extensive evidence about the day trading losses, and it was entitled to weigh that against his contribution in buying a farm that appreciated in value.
The decision is unpublished, which means it is not binding precedent. The rule it applies is well established, and the case is a useful illustration of how a trial court is permitted to reason.
If your spouse has been moving money and you are trying to understand what a court can do about it, our attorneys can review the account history with you before a temporary order locks the picture in place.
Maintenance Does Not Turn on Proving You Are Broke
Under RCW 26.09.090, a court may award maintenance in the amounts and for the periods it deems just, without regard to misconduct, after considering all relevant factors. Those factors include the financial resources of the spouse seeking support and the ability of the other spouse to meet their own needs while paying.
The Washington Supreme Court clarified in In re Marriage of Wilcox that because the statute requires a court only to consider the listed factors, establishing need is not a prerequisite to a spousal maintenance award. A court also need not enter findings on every factor, only consider them.
In Zemke, the income disparity was substantial across a 34-year marriage in which the husband was the primary earner. The court weighed his waste of community assets as part of assessing his own financial resources, and the appellate court held he had not shown any abuse of discretion in that.
Talk to a Seattle Divorce Attorney About the Marital Estate
Blair Kim Moeller, PLLC handles complex property division and maintenance for divorcing spouses in Seattle, Bellevue, and throughout King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties. Sara Kim focuses on high-asset divorce, property division, and separate property tracing, and she can tell you what the account records are likely to show a judge. Contact our office at 888-478-4001 or schedule a consultation to discuss the divorce process in Washington.
