Alimony in Washington.
Whether the state sets a formula or leaves it to the judge, what the court has to weigh, how long it runs, and what brings it to an end.
See a different stateWashington
No formula, no cap. 'The maintenance order shall be in such amounts and for such periods of time as the court deems just, without regard to misconduct'.
Use the state’s own words
Washington calls it 'Maintenance'. RCW 26.09.090 is captioned 'Maintenance orders for either spouse or either domestic partner – Factors.' Washington's chapter is written throughout in the paired form 'either spouse or either domestic partner', because chapter 26.09 RCW was amended by 2008 c 6 to cover state-registered domestic partnerships on the same terms as marriage. The words 'alimony' and 'spousal support' do not appear in RCW 26.09.090.. Using the state’s own term matters when you are searching for forms or reading an order — the words are not interchangeable across state lines, and some of them mean different things in different places.
What the law actually says
The power the court has
What the judge has to weigh
How long it lasts
Duration
None. There is no bracket, no cap, no presumption and no schedule keyed to the length of the marriage. The whole of the duration rule is the phrase in RCW 26.09.090(1): 'for such periods of time as the court deems just'. The duration of the marriage or domestic partnership enters only as factor (d).
Does behavior matter?
Marital misconduct
Washington excludes misconduct in terms, and puts the exclusion in the operative sentence rather than in a proviso. RCW 26.09.090(1), quoted verbatim: 'The maintenance order shall be in such amounts and for such periods of time as the court deems just, without regard to misconduct, after considering all relevant factors including but not limited to:'. The words 'without regard to misconduct' govern both the amount and the period. No factor in the list refers to conduct, fault, adultery or the cause of the breakdown.
When it ends, and when it can change
What brings it to an end
RCW 26.09.170(2), quoted verbatim in full: 'Unless otherwise agreed in writing or expressly provided in the decree the obligation to pay future maintenance is terminated upon the death of either party or the remarriage of the party receiving maintenance or registration of a new domestic partnership of the party receiving maintenance.' There is no cohabitation provision anywhere in RCW 26.09.090 or 26.09.170. Chapter 26.09 RCW does not make cohabitation by the recipient a termination event, a presumption or a listed factor. Source: https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=26.09.170
Changing it later
RCW 26.09.170(1), quoted verbatim in full: 'Except as otherwise provided in RCW 26.09.070(7), the provisions of any decree respecting maintenance or support may be modified: (a) Only as to installments accruing subsequent to the petition for modification or motion for adjustment except motions to compel court-ordered adjustments, which shall be effective as of the first date specified in the decree for implementing the adjustment; and, (b) except as otherwise provided in this section, only upon a showing of a substantial change of circumstances. The provisions as to property disposition may not be revoked or modified, unless the court finds the existence of conditions that justify the reopening of a judgment under the laws of this state.' The threshold is 'a substantial change of circumstances'; relief runs only forward from the petition. The many further subsections of RCW 26.09.170 that relax that threshold – the twenty-four-month adjustment, the severe-economic-hardship route, the incarceration provisions – are written for child support orders, not maintenance. Two versions of RCW 26.09.170 were published on the Washington Legislature's site when read, one 'Effective until April 1, 2027' and one 'Effective April 1, 2027'; subsections (1) and (2), the two that govern maintenance, are word-for-word identical in both.
Worth knowing about Washington
Three. First, the express words 'without regard to misconduct' in the operative sentence. Most states are silent on fault or make it a factor; Washington legislated it out of the calculation, and did so in 1973. Second, the statutory silence on cohabitation. A Washington recipient who lives with a new partner is not caught by any provision of chapter 26.09 RCW; the payer's route is the ordinary substantial-change-of-circumstances motion under RCW 26.09.170(1)(b), and the statute supplies no presumption to help. Third, the statute is unusually bare for a modern maintenance provision: a single sentence of authority, six factors, no purpose clause, no eligibility test, no duration rule, no cap and no formula. Everything that constrains a Washington maintenance award beyond that comes from appellate decisions, which are not quoted here because none was read from a primary source.
The tax rule changed, and most guides still describe the old one
For a divorce or separation instrument executed after 31 December 2018, alimony is not deductible by the person paying it and not taxable to the person receiving it. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act repealed the provisions that made it otherwise. For an instrument executed on or before that date the old treatment continues — deductible to the payer, taxable to the recipient — unless it is later modified and the modification expressly adopts the new rule.
This is not a detail. Under the old rule a higher-rate payer could transfer income to a lower-rate recipient and the two of them shared the saving. That saving no longer exists, which changes what a given number is worth to each side. New Hampshire wrote the point into its own statute: its 23 per cent figure assumes non-deductibility, and reverts to 30 per cent if the federal treatment is ever restored.
Washington has no state income tax, so the question of whether the state follows the federal rule does not arise. The federal treatment above is the entire picture. In four states that do levy an income tax — Arkansas, California, New Jersey and New York — it is not. The fifty-state table.
Authority: Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Pub. L. 115-97, section 11051, repealing Internal Revenue Code sections 71 and 215; see also IRS Publication 504.The other number that decides your budget
How Washington calculates child support, and the overnight count that moves it more than income does.
And the question underneath it
What Washington presumes about custody, and what the judge has to weigh.