## Facts

- Robert M. Urbana (husband) and Elizabeth A. Urbana (wife) married in January 1996; they had one son together, and Elizabeth had two daughters from a prior marriage.
- The parties separated in June 2005 after allegations of abuse involving Elizabeth’s older daughter; both stepdaughters later alleged sexual molestation.
- Robert was convicted of multiple counts of child molestation and sentenced to 100 months’ incarceration; during incarceration he earned minimal prison wages.
- A temporary order required Robert to pay monthly child support for the parties’ son; he paid little and accumulated substantial arrearages.
- The trial court entered a dissolution decree, declined to enter a current child-support order due to Robert’s incarceration and limited income, and divided property and debts.
- The trial court awarded Elizabeth a substantially larger share of community property (approximately 80/20) and awarded her the family residence, characterizing the home as primarily community property with a small separate component for Elizabeth.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by using the property division as a de facto, prospective child-support award when it declined to enter a current support order.
2. Whether the trial court improperly considered marital misconduct in dividing property.
3. Whether the property division impermissibly required Robert to support his stepchildren after dissolution.

## Decision

- The appellate court held the trial court abused its discretion in the property division.
- The court vacated the property division and remanded for a new distribution consistent with the governing dissolution statutes.
- The court concluded the challenged division effectively operated as prospective child support, was influenced by impermissible consideration of misconduct, and improperly shifted support of stepchildren through the property award.

## Legal Principles

- A dissolution court must distribute property and liabilities in a “just and equitable” manner based on statutory factors, and abuses discretion when its decision is manifestly unreasonable or rests on untenable grounds.
- Property distribution and child support serve distinct statutory purposes; property division may not be used as a substitute mechanism for prospective child support.
- Marital misconduct, including serious criminal conduct, is not a proper factor in the allocation of property in dissolution.
- Absent a legal basis such as adoption or enforceable agreement, a stepparent generally has no post-dissolution duty to support stepchildren; a property award may not be structured to impose such support indirectly.

## Conclusion

The court vacated and remanded the dissolution property division because the extreme disparity in the award was driven by impermissible objectives—providing prospective child support, punishing marital misconduct, and shifting support for stepchildren—rather than the statutory factors governing equitable distribution.


In re Marriage of Urbana, 147 Wash. App. 1, 195 P.3d 959 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008)