INTHE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON Inthe Matterofthe Marriage of LALIDASCHNURMAN, Respondent, and SETH SCHNURMAN, 

### Appellant. ) FILED: December30,2013 No. 70048-1-1 DIVISION ONE PUBLISHED OPINION o r~3 o —id CJ -ir , ^J CD ^4--i m ' 'o o O-TI (.*.' 3> G ^ ~<-' -—*i

-•- f- •'"- CO *-" 10

•• go O.' Appelwick, J. — Lalida Schnurman and Seth Schnurman dissolved their 

### marriage and share substantially equal residential time with their two children. In calculating the parties' child support obligations, the trial court used the child support schedule and standard calculation inchapter26.19 RCW. The trial court found Seth to 

### be the obligor parent and orderedhim to pay a monthly transfer payment of $1,300 to Lalida. Seth argues that the standard calculation does not applyin shared residential situations. We affirm. FACTS 

### Lalida Schnurman and Seth Schnurman1 married on June 22, 2001 and 

### separated on July 22,2011. They havetwo children, who were six and eight years old

at the time ofdissolution. 

### The trial court awarded Lalida$2,000 a month inspousal maintenance forthree 

### years. The court imputed this maintenance income to Lalida at Seth's requestfor purposes ofcalculating child support.



### 1We refer to the parties by theirfirst namesforclarity.No. 70048-1-1/2
After a contested proceeding, the trial court entered a final parenting plan in which Lalida and Seth share equal residential time with the children throughout the 

### year.2 The order stated, "The children named in this parenting plan are scheduled to reside substantially equal time with both parents. Both parents are designated the custodian ofthe children solelyfor purposes of all otherstate and federal statutes which 

### requireadesignationordeterminationofcustody."3 In calculating the parties' child support obligations, the trial court found Seth's 

### monthly net income to be $6,338 and Lalida's to be $3,380. The trial court determined Seth to be the obligor parent. Using the standard calculation for child support 

### obligations, the court ordered Seth to pay Lalida a monthly transfer payment of $1,300 ($650 for each child). 

### Seth requested a downward deviation from the standard calculation for child 

### support.4 Thetrial courtdenied Seth'srequest, finding: While the Husband will be spending substantial time with the children, there is no evidence this will significantly increase his costs to 

### support the children orsignificantly reduce Wife'sexpenses to support the children. Allowing a downward deviation from the standard childsupport calculation will also result in insufficientfunds fortheWife's household.


### 2For instance, during the school year, the children reside fortwo weeks with Seth Fridaythrough Mondayand Lalida Mondaythrough Friday. Then aftertwoweeks, the children residewith Lalida Friday through Monday and Seth Monday through Friday. This repeats everyfourweeks. 

### 3The statute contemplates the designation of "the parent"withwhomthechildren are scheduled to reside a majority of the time as the custodian, not both. See RCW 26.09.285. Thedesignation is not challenged on appeal. 

### 4Seth arguedbelowthat the statutorydeviations in RCW26.19.075 do notapply in shared residential situations. Therefore, he contends that he did not, in fact, seek a 

### deviation. Because RCW 26.19.075 applies in shared residential situations, however, 

### Seth's request for the trial court todecrease hismonthlytransfer payment can properly be characterized as a requestfor a downward deviation.No. 70048-1-1/3


### Seth appealsfromthe orderof childsupportand amended decree of dissolution. DISCUSSION 

### We review a trial court's order of child support for abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of Booth. 114 Wn.2d 772, 776, 791 P.2d 519 (1990). A trial court abuses its discretion if its decision rests on unreasonable or untenable grounds. Dix v. ICTGrp.. Inc.. 160 Wn.2d 826, 833, 161 P.3d 1016 (2007). A trial court necessarily abuses its discretion if its ruling is based on an erroneous view of the law or involves incorrect legal analysis. Id. I. Shared Residential Time Seth argues that the standard calculation for child support obligations does not apply when parents share equal residential time. He contends that only parents with whom their children spend the majority oftheir residential time are entitled to a support transfer payment based on the child support schedule's standard calculation. Because the parents here share residential time, Seth contends, the trial court abused its discretion in awarding Lalida a transfer payment. He insists that neitherthe legislature
noranyWashington courthas determined the proper method for calculating the amount oftransfer payment when parents share equal residential time. He therefore urges us to adopt a newformula for calculating transfer payments in such cases. He argues that trial courts must consider and equitably apportion the expenses that each parent pays for shelter, transportation, and clothing. In short, Seth is wrong. The Washington Supreme Court, affirming this court, 

### previously held that the statutory child support schedule applies in shared residential situations like here. State ex rel. M.M.G. v. Graham, 159 Wn.2d 623, 626, 632, 152No. 70048-1-1/4 

### P.3d 1005 (2007); State ex rel. M.M.G. v. Graham. 123 Wn. App. 931, 933, 99 P.3d 1248 (2004), affd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds. Graham. 159 Wn.2d 623, abrogated on other grounds. In re Marriage of McCausland. 159 Wn.2d 607, 152 P.3d 1013(2007). Chapter 26.19 RCW is the child support schedule statute. The legislature's stated intent in enacting the statute was "to insure that child support orders are adequate to meet a child's basic needs and to provide additional child support commensurate with the parents' income, resources, and standard of living." RCW 

### 26.19.001. The legislature also intended child support obligations to be "equitably apportioned between the parents." Id. 

### When entering an orderof childsupport, thetrialcourtbegins by setting the basic 

### child support obligation. RCW 26.19.011(1); Graham. 159 Wn.2d at 627. This 

### obligation is determined from the statute's economic table, which is based on the parents' combined monthly net income, as wellas the numberand age of their children. RCW26.19.011(1), .020. The economictable is presumptiveforcombined monthly net incomes of$12,000 orless. RCW26.19.020, .065. The trial court next allocates the child support obligation between the parents 

### based on each parent's share of the combined monthly income. RCW 26.19.080(1). The courtthen determines the standard calculation, which is the presumptive amountof 

### child support owed by the obligor parent to the obligee parent. RCW 26.19.011(8); Graham. 159 Wn.2d at 627. Ifrequested, the court considers whether it is appropriate 

### to deviate upwards or downwards from the standard calculation. RCW26.19.011(4), 

### (8). The court has discretion to deviate from the standard calculation based on suchNo. 70048-1-1/5


### factors as the parents' income and expenses, obligations to children from other relationships, andthe children's residential schedule. RCW26.19.075(1). Ifthe court considers a deviation based on residential schedule, itmust follow a specific statutory analysis: The court may deviate from the standard calculation ifthe child spends a significant amount of time with the parent who is obligated to make a support transfer payment. The court may not deviate on that basis ifthe deviation will result in insufficient funds in the household receiving the support to meet the basic needs of the child or ifthe child is receiving temporary assistancefor needyfamilies. When determining the amountof the deviation, the court shall consider evidence concerning the increased expenses to a parentmaking supporttransfer payments resulting from the significant amount of time spent with that parent and shall consider the decreased expenses, if any, to the party receiving the support resulting from the significant amount of time the child spends with the parent making the supporttransferpayment. RCW 26.19.075(1)(d). The trial court must enterwritten findings offact supporting the


### reasons for any deviation or denial of a party's request for deviation. RCW 26.19.075(3); Graham. 159 Wn.2d at 627-28. After determining the standard 

### calculation and any deviations, the trial courtthen orders one parent to pay the othera supporttransferpayment. RCW26.19.011 (9). The residential schedule deviation was added to the child support schedule in 

### 1991. Laws of 1991, 1st Spec. Sess., ch. 28, § 6. Before that, the Washington Child 

### Support Guidelines allowed for a residential credit if the child resided overnight with both parents more than 25 percent of the time. Helen Donigan, Calculating and Documenting Child Support Awards Under Washington Law. 26 Gonz. L. Rev. 13, 45 

### (1991). Aseparate worksheet provided space for determining the residential credit for each parent. |d This special worksheet also applied to cases where parents splitNo. 70048-1-1/6


### residential time. |g\ at 45-46. The legislature did not retain this formula for residential 

### credit against child support with the 1991 addition of statutory deviations. See RCW 26.19.075(1)(d). 

### In Graham. Michelle Cunliffe and Richard Graham shared equal residential time withtheirtwo daughters. 123 Wn. App. at 933. The trial courtestimated Graham's net 

### monthly child support obligation to be $872 and Cunliffe's to be $437. \_± at 934. 

### However, the court deviated downwards from Graham's standard calculation, finding thatthe girls spentsignificanttime with him and the deviation did not resultininsufficient funds for Cunliffe. ]d. 

### Several years later, the State petitioned to modify child support, jd. at 934. Graham asked the trial court to apply In re Marriage of Arvev. 77 Wn. App. 817, 894 P.2d 1346 (1995), by analogy and split the parents' child support obligation equally, because ofthe children's residential time with him. Graham. 123 Wn. App. at 933. The Arvev court established a formula for determining child supportwhen one child resides 

### primarily withone parentand anotherchild resides primarily withthe otherparent, jd. at 939. On appeal, we refused to apply the Arvev formula to shared residential arrangements. ]d_. at 940-41. Instead, we held thatthe trial court must use the standard calculation and statutory deviations in shared residential time cases. IcL at 941. RCW 26.19.075(1)(d) permits deviation from the presumptive transfer payment based on the children's residential schedule. ]d. Such a deviation could therefore bewarranted when children share residential time equally between parents. \jL But, a deviation would still be discretionary and should focus on the legislature's primary intent to maintainNo. 70048-1-1/7


### reasonable support for the children in each household. ]g\ "Thus," we concluded, "it appears that the Legislature has already considered and provided for the situation presented here." Id. 

### On review before the Washington Supreme Court, Graham argued that chapter 

### 26.19 RCW does not adequately guide trial courts in calculating child support obligations when parents share residential time equally. Graham. 159 Wn.2d at 633. 

### Therefore, Graham argued, the Arvev formula should apply insuch situations. ]cL The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed our opinion, jd. at 636. The court emphasized that the plain text of RCW 26.19.075 gives trial courts discretion to deviate from the standard calculation based on residential schedule. ]cL The Graham court therefore refused to read a new formula into the statute when it already contemplates shared residential situations. IdL "Because the statute explicitly gives the trial court discretion to deviatefrom the basic child supportobligation based on the facts of a particularcase,

a specific formula is neither necessary nor statutorily required to ensure the parents' child supportobligation is properly allocated." Id. (emphasis added). Seth argues that the issue presented in Graham is different than the issue here,

so Graham does not control. Instead, he contends that the standard calculation applies 

### onlytoprimary residential parents.5 Sethignoresthe express holding ofGraham. The
5 The statute does not recognize primary or secondary parents. The words "custody" and "visitation" were removed from the statute when the Parenting Act of 1987, chapters 26.09, 26.10 RCW, was adopted to remove the emotional, power-laden 

### inference flowing fromthose terms. Laws of 1987, ch. 460, §§ 5-6; State v. Veliz. 176 Wn.2d 849, 855-56, 298 P.3d 75 (2013); see also Inre Marriage of Kovacs. 121 Wn.2d 

### 795, 800-01, 854 P.2d 629 (1993). Similarly, use of primary residential parent should be avoided. Father and Mother, or the parents' names, would be the appropriate designations here.No. 70048-1-1/8
Graham court was presented with and rejected an alternative formula for calculating transfer payments when parents share residential time. jd. 635-36. Instead, the Graham court held that the standard calculation and statutory deviations for transfer 

### payments apply when parents share residential time equally, jd, at 636. Graham is 

### dispositive here. The statute already allows for deviation based on residential time and 

### prescribes howto doit.6 Adopting Seth's proposed formula would also require us to ignore clear statutory 

### language requiring courts tofollowthe same processfor all childsupportobligations. A stated purpose of the childsupport schedule is to reduce "the adversarial nature of the proceedings by increasing voluntarysettlements as a result of the greaterpredictability 

### achieved by a uniform statewide child support schedule." RCW 26.19.001(3). Seth's alternative ad hoc formula defeats this predictability. The statute mandates that 

### schedule applies "[i]n each county of the state" and "[i]n all proceedingsin which child support is determined ormodified." RCW 26.19.035(1). Likewise, the statute requires 

### that "[t]he provisions of this chapter for determining child support and reasons for deviation from the standard calculation shall be applied in the same manner by the 

### court, presiding officers, and reviewing officers." RCW26.19.035(1). Thisundoubtedly includes shared residential situations like the one at issue here.

6Seth's reliance on In re Marriage of Holmes, 128 Wn. App. 727, 117 P.3d 370 

### (2005), does notcompel adifferentconclusion. Holmes did notinvolve a50/50 shared residential situation like here. jd. at 740. The Holmes court simply held that the trial court acted within its discretion in terminating the father's childsupportobligation. Id at 

### 740-41. Though the father made significantly more money than the mother, the residential schedule had changed and the son resided a majority of the time with the father. Id. at 740-41.No. 70048-1-1/9


### Thetrial courtherefollowed the process mandated bythe child supportschedule 

### and Graham. The court first determined the parties' combined monthly net income. The courtidentified Seth as the obligor parent. Using the standard calculation, the court ordered Seth to pay Lalida a $1,300 monthly transfer payment. Upon Seth's request, the court considered whether his shared residential time with the children necessitated
a downward deviation. The court found that it did not, because Seth's time with the children did not significantly increase his costs to support them and a downward deviation would leave Lalida with insufficientfunds. This was the correct process under the statute and under Graham for the parties' shared residential arrangement. It would have been errorforthetrial courtto applythe alternativeformula Seth requested. We hold that the standard calculation and residential schedule deviation in the 

### child support schedule apply when parents share equal residential time like here. Therefore, the trial court did not err in ordering a transfer payment from Seth to Lalida based on the standard calculation.

II. Attorney Fees 

### Lalidarequests her attorneyfees on appeal on three bases: the frivolous nature ofthe appeal, Seth's intransigence, and herneed and Seth's ability to pay. 

### Lalida first argues that the appeal is frivolous under RAP 18.9(a), because this 

### matterwas alreadydecided inGraham. Anappeal is frivolous ifthere are nodebatable issues upon which reasonable minds might differand it is so totally devoid of merit that there is no reasonable possibility ofreversal. Tiffany FamilyTrust Corp. v. City of Kent. 155 Wn.2d 225, 241, 119 P.3d 325 (2005). All doubts as to whether the appeal is frivolous should be resolved in favor ofthe appellant. Jd An appeal that is affirmedNo. 70048-1-1/10 

### simply because the arguments are rejected is not frivolous. ]d Seth argues that Graham is distinguishable, because there the parties did not dispute that the standard calculation was the proper starting point for calculating transfer payments. Here, Seth argues that the standard calculation does not apply. Though this is a meritless argumenttreading right up to the line, it is not so entirely devoid of merit as to be wholly frivolous. Second, Lalida argues that even ifthe appeal is not frivolous, Seth has been intransigent by making a straightforward application of the child support schedule unduly difficult. Intransigence is demonstrated by conduct such as litigious behavior, filing repetitive or excessive motions, or discovery abuses. In re Marriage ofWallace. 111 Wn. App. 697, 710, 45 P.3d 1131 (2002). Lalida makes no showing of 

### intransigence on appeal—and the trial courtfound none below—so we decline to award fees on this basis. 

### Lastly, she contends that she is entitled to fees under RAP 18.1(a) and RCW 26.09.140, because ofher relative need and Seth's ability to pay. The trial courtfound 

### that Lalida has the need for attorney fees, but Seth has no further ability to pay. Lalida 

### does not argue that the trial court erred in refusing to award fees based on Seth's 

### inability to pay. Despite her obvious need and the fact that she did not seek these added expenses, we see no evidence in the parties' available financial information of a 

### significantpositivechangein Seth'sabilitytopay.7 Wetherefore deny Lalida's request for fees.


### 7Lalida moved to strike Seth's financial affidavitas untimelyfiled. Seth filed his financial affidavit on November 15, 2013, two days after oral argument. This violates

10No. 70048-1-1/11

III. Citation to Unpublished Opinion 

### RAP 10.3(a)(6) requires the argument portion of an appellate brief to include citations to legal authority. RAP 10.7 and 18.9(a) authorizes us to sanction, sua sponte,
a party or counsel for failing to comply with rules of appellate procedure. In Lalida's response brief, her counsel cited and relied on an unpublished appellate decision from this court. This violates GR 14.1(a), which prohibits citing unpublished Washington court of appeals opinions as authority. For this violation, we impose a $100 sanction against Lalida's counsel, payableto the registry ofthis court. We affirm.

WE CONCUR: 

# l>?a<<2l/^

RAP 18.1(c),which requires a party tofile a financialaffidavitno later than 10days prior 

### to oral argument. We therefore grant Lalida'smotionto strikeSeth'sfinancial affidavit.

11