Court Opinion

ID: 9633850
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 12:03:31.791203+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:43.635051
License: Public Domain

Finley, J.
(concurring in the result) — There is considerable conflict in the reasoning employed in the following two groups of cases:
(a) Bradley v. Fowler, 30 Wn. (2d) 609, 192 P. (2d) 969, 2 A. L. R. (2d) 822;
State ex rel. Kibbe v. Rummel, 36 Wn. (2d) 244, 217 P. (2d) 603;
(b) Gainsburg v. Garbarsky, 157 Wash. 537, 289 Pac. 1000;
State ex rel. Meins v. Superior Court, 159 Wash. 277, 292 Pac. 1011;
Ditmar v. Ditmar, 48 Wn. (2d) 373, 293 P. (2d) 759.
The conflict may result from the significantly different fact patterns involved. This may be a sufficient explanation of the conflict. On the other hand, it does exist, and it is not resolved by closing our eyes and stating that it does not.
I believe that confusion as to the reasoning of the two lines of authoritative-cases is increased by the decision in the instant case, because it over-emphasizes the reasoning in Bradley v. Fowler, supra, which stresses inflexibility and construes child-support provisions literally and strictly, irrespective of circumstances. In fact, language in the instant case, and in Bradley and Kibbe (supra), indicates *583that the only possibility of equitable relief is prospective through application to the courts and formal judicial action. The reasoning in Gainsburg, Meins, and Ditmar (supra) is contra.
Disenchanted ex-spouses will continuously have differences of opinion and perhaps real trouble regarding provisions in divorce decrees relating to child-support payments. Frequently, past inequities will affect present and future compliance with court orders respecting child support. It is the business of the courts to be available to hear and to attempt to adjust and to settle problems of child support, whether they have a past, present, or future connotation.
The arbitrary reasoning of the Bradley case is not conducive to practicable solutions for all child-support problems. Under the reasoning of the Gainsburg, Meins, and Ditmar cases (supra), it is certain that troubles regarding child support could be adjusted practicably. Logically, this should lead to settlement with more finality. Obviously, I would prefer discounting Bradley and emphasizing the more flexible practicable and equitable principle of the other line of decisions.
On the facts in the instant case, I think the same result would be reached under either Bradley or the other line of cases. Consequently, I concur in the result reached by the majority herein.