Washington wife awarded $328,715 from ex-husband's 401(k), not cash

Representative Image (AI-generated)A divorce settlement can look equal on paper but create different financial challenges when one spouse receives retirement savings instead of readily available cash. That issue arose in a Washington divorce case in which a woman was awarded $328,715.53 as an equalisation payment, but the money was to come from her former husband's 401(k) account rather than his cash holdings. She argued that the arrangement could expose her to taxes and early withdrawal penalties if she needed access to the funds before retirement.The dispute reached the Washington Court of Appeals after the woman challenged several parts of the divorce settlement, including the division of marital property, spousal maintenance and attorney's fees. In its October 29, 2026, unpublished opinion in In re Marriage of Goldstein, case number 41005-6-III, available on Justia, the appellate court upheld the trial court's decisions. It concluded that the woman had not demonstrated that the property distribution or the denial of additional financial support amounted to an abuse of discretion.Couple separated after 13 years of marriageDana Leigh Goldstein and Todd Alan Goldstein married in February 2009 and separated in 2022. Following their separation, Dana filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage. After a two-day trial, the court assessed the couple's assets and liabilities and determined that each spouse was entitled to property worth $428,054.19. However, differences in the assets assigned to each party meant that an equalisation payment was necessary to balance the distribution.The court ordered Todd to pay Dana $328,715.53 by transferring a portion of his GM 401(k) account. The settlement also awarded Todd the couple's Bask cash account. Dana objected to receiving the payment through retirement savings. She wanted at least part of the amount to come from the Bask account so she could access liquid funds without having to withdraw money from a retirement account. She also challenged the court's decisions concerning other assets, personal debts, maintenance and legal expenses. After the trial court rejected her request for reconsideration, she appealed.Wife raised concerns about taxes and early withdrawalsDana argued that receiving the equalisation payment through Todd's 401(k) was unfair because withdrawing money from the account could result in taxes and early distribution penalties. She was 59 years old at the time of trial and said she needed financial flexibility rather than having most of the payment tied up in retirement savings.However, the trial court had considered her financial circumstances and testimony about her retirement concerns. It concluded that transferring part of Todd's retirement account was an appropriate way to balance the property distribution. The appeals court agreed. It explained that Washington law requires trial courts to make a just and equitable division of marital and separate property after considering the nature of the assets, the length of the marriage and each spouse's financial circumstances.It also noted that tax consequences can be considered when valuing marital property if they are immediate or directly result from the distribution and are not speculative. In this case, the taxes would arise when Dana eventually withdrew money from the 401(k), rather than directly from the transfer itself. The court therefore found that the possibility of future taxes and penalties did not establish that the settlement was unfair.Court rejected other challenges to the property divisionDana also disputed the calculation of an Athene IRA, arguing that the trial court had incorrectly recorded the community and separate property interests. The appeals court acknowledged that Todd's separate property interest in the Athene IRA had been incorrectly listed as $49,032.92 instead of $55,509. However, the judges found that the error did not affect the calculation of the couple's community property.She further challenged the deduction of $7,909 in personal liabilities from her equalisation payment. The appellate court found that she had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the trial court had made an error. Her claims concerning her Merrill 401(k) and IRA accounts were also rejected. The trial court had recognised her premarital contributions as separate property and treated the remaining balances as community property.No additional maintenance or attorney's feesBeyond the property division, Dana sought $1,500 in monthly spousal maintenance for 48 months. She argued that she needed additional support because the settlement did not provide her with enough readily available money. The trial court had considered her financial resources, age, income, living arrangements and the couple's standard of living during the marriage. It noted that she earned $58,000 annually, had purchased a condominium and had approximately $35,000 remaining after furnishing it. The court found that the parties had not maintained a particularly high standard of living and denied her maintenance request.Dana also challenged the denial of attorney's fees, arguing that Todd had significantly greater monthly net income and liquid assets. However, the appeals court found that the trial court had evaluated both parties' financial circumstances and her ability to pay her own legal expenses.Ultimately, the Washington Court of Appeals affirmed the divorce settlement and rejected her request for appellate fees. The decision left the $328,715.53 equalisation payment through Todd's GM 401(k) intact, along with the trial court's other financial orders.