Background
Mark and Francisca Wondrack signed an antenuptial agreement requiring each party to bear their own attorney fees and costs in any dissolution or maintenance action. Mark’s net worth exceeded $15 million, while Francisca’s was approximately $175,000. They married in 2019, had one child, and separated in 2022. Their ensuing litigation included dissolution, domestic-violence-protection-order, parenting, child-related, and property disputes.
Francisca sought interim fees under RCW 26.09.140 after incurring substantial legal expenses. The trial court made several fee awards but initially limited one award to fees for litigating child-related issues, reasoning that In re Marriage of Burke permitted the court to disregard the antenuptial fee waiver only for such issues. After further proceedings, the court awarded Francisca additional fees but reduced her request for offsets and charges it considered unreasonable. Although the challenged orders were interlocutory and the parties had not sought discretionary review, the Court of Appeals exercised its discretion to address the legal question concerning Burke’s scope.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals held that when parties are litigating parenting-plan or child-support issues, RCW 26.09.140 gives the trial court discretion to award reasonable fees and costs to a financially disadvantaged spouse despite a contractual fee waiver. That authority is not limited to fees incurred specifically on parenting issues. The court reasoned that a narrower rule could allow a financially advantaged parent to exhaust the other parent’s resources through litigation over nonparenting matters, potentially leaving the disadvantaged parent unrepresented and impairing the court’s ability to protect the child’s welfare.
The court emphasized that RCW 26.09.140 does not make a fee award mandatory. Courts must balance the requesting spouse’s need against the other spouse’s ability to pay, and the amount awarded remains limited to reasonable fees and costs. The court declined to affirm or reverse either interlocutory fee award, remanded for further proceedings consistent with its clarification of Burke, and authorized the trial court to determine reasonable appellate fees and costs.
Chief Judge Staab concurred in the result but disagreed with the majority’s broad reading of Burke. She would have held that a valid fee waiver remains enforceable as to property and maintenance disputes, while permitting interim nonparenting fee relief until the trial court determines whether the contested antenuptial agreement is valid and enforceable.
Key Takeaways
- When parenting-plan or child-support issues are being litigated, a trial court may award a financially disadvantaged spouse reasonable fees and costs notwithstanding an antenuptial fee waiver.
- The award may include reasonable fees for nonparenting matters; it is not confined to work directly attributable to parenting or child-support issues.
- RCW 26.09.140 remains discretionary: courts must consider financial need, ability to pay, and the reasonableness of the requested fees and costs.
Why It Matters
The decision expands the practical reach of Burke in dissolution cases involving children. A financially advantaged spouse cannot use a contractual fee waiver to categorically prevent an award of nonparenting fees while parenting matters are also being litigated.
The ruling does not invalidate antenuptial fee waivers generally or guarantee reimbursement of every charge. Trial courts retain broad discretion to reduce requests for unreasonable, duplicative, premature, or otherwise unsupported work and to account for the parties’ financial circumstances.