Seattle Attorneys Blog
Washington recognizes committed intimate relationships (“CIRs”), which are cohabiting relationships that are stable and like a marriage, although both parties know they are not lawfully married. Washington courts will distribute community-like property from a CIR in a just and equitable manner. A man recently appealed a property division after a court found he had been in a CIR with his former partner.
According to the appeals court’s unpublished opinion, the parties were involved in a CIR between 2009 and 2021. The man conceded the existence of the CIR on appeal. The man owned a home in Seattle and the woman moved into it with him in June 2009. They moved to Bainbridge Island in approximately 2011 and remained there until the CIR ended in July 2021.
The woman petitioned for a distribution of the parties’ community-like property. She testified she had helped with the mortgage and other expenses when they lived in Seattle. She did not however, testify regarding the value of her work or whether it increased the value of the home.
The woman testified about their contributions to their joint account. She said they had the joint account for joint expenses. She further testified they did not have a specific agreement that their other assets would remain separate.
Both parties testified the man paid the Seattle mortgage from the joint account for four months after they moved to the second house. He sold the Seattle house in the spring of 2021 and kept the proceeds in an investment account.
The woman testified she knew he owned the Bainbridge Island property when they started dating. She testified a balloon payment was coming due on the land loan and he used her contribution to pay off the loan and put a modular home on the property. They designed the home together and the women put $34,379 down for its construction. Both parties’ names were on the construction loan and the construction deed of trust. The bank would not give the loan to both parties unless the woman had an interest in the property.
The man testified he had not wanted to give her an interest. The woman testified he “was very angry and said he decided he didn’t want to do it” on the day they were to file the quitclaim deed. She said she would not have made the investment if he had not signed the quitclaim deed. She said he decided to sign the deed because he was not able to make the balloon payment and would have lost the land.
The man testified he agreed to joint tenancy with right of survivorship because the woman did not want to own the property with his siblings in the event of his death. She testified he also did not want to have to share the property with her family in the event of her death.
The man testified the relationship was going well at that time and they intended to live in the modular home together. He said he thought they would get married.
The woman testified she refinanced the property in 2017 to remove the man’s name at his request so he could refinance the Seattle house.
The Property Division
The trial court found the property in Seattle was the man’s separate property, along with the proceeds of the sale. It determined, however, that the woman was entitled to $100,000 in reimbursement for her contributions to that house.
The trial court concluded the Bainbridge Island property was community property. It was presumed to be the man’s separate property because he bought it before the CIR started, but the presumption was rebutted by his execution of the quitclaim deed. The court also determined the modular home was community property, noting the woman had helped buy and refinance it. Because the land loan was rolled into the construction loan, the mortgage payments included both the land and house. The trial court awarded this property to the woman.
The Appeal
The man appealed. He argued the court failed to determine if the parties had an enforceable oral agreement to keep finances, other than the joint account, separate.
Separate property is not subject to division by the court when a CIR ends. A court may only distribute the community-like property. A couple in a CIR may agree to change community-like property to separate property by oral or written agreement. A party asserting an oral agreement changed the character of property must show by clear and convincing evidence that an agreement existed and both parties jointly observed its terms throughout the CIR. In re Parentage of G.W.-F.
The trial court found the parties “often” commingled finances and concluded they paid for community items from separate accounts and separate items from the joint account. The court found the parties’ agreement to maintain separate finances was invalid and they failed to follow it due to commingling.
The man argued the court implicitly found there was an oral agreement and was therefore required to determine if the agreement was enforceable. The appeals court noted, however, that he had the burden to prove the parties had consistently followed the agreement. The trial court was clearly not convinced any agreement had been consistently followed such that it was enforceable.
Property Characterization
The man also argued the court erred by characterizing the Bainbridge Island property as community property. He argued he did not intent to transmute it to community property and the quitclaim deed was not sufficient to overcome the separate property presumption.
The appeals court noted the man had executed the quitclaim deed himself, evidencing intent. The woman had testified he understood the deed granted her a property interest in exchange for her help constructing the home. The parties mutually understood the home to be a joint investment. The man testified the woman had made a downpayment and they planned to design the and live in it together. He did not dispute the court’s finding he would not have been able to construct the home on the property without her help.
The appeals court determined there was substantial evidence the husband intended to change the property’s character.
The appeals court noted the bank had not required the conveyance of a “joint tenancy with right of survivorship.” The parties included this language to prevent issues with their respective families if the other party died. The appeals court determined this conveyance showed his intent to change the property’s character.
The appeals court determined the court had not abused its discretion in characterizing the second property as community-like property because there was substantial evidence supporting the court’s determination.
Reimbursement Claim
The appeals court determined that the equitable reimbursement award to the woman was not supported by sufficient evidence. Although the court found she had made community contributions to home improvements, it did not identify evidence establishing how much the value increased or supporting a $100,000 valuation on her contributions. The written orders did not state the basis for how the court determined the amount. The court acknowledged it was not provided documentation of the amount she paid for items she contributed and stated it was “making an equitable determination. . .”
The appeals court pointed out the mortgage payments made from community funds while the woman lived in the Seattle home were not reimbursable because there is not a right to reimbursement when the party who contributed received a reciprocal benefit by use and enjoyment of the separate property.
The appeals court noted the woman had the burden to establish the valuation of her contributions within the scope of evidence. The appeals court concluded the award was not supported by the record and was an abuse of discretion.
The appeals court affirmed the property division but reversed the equitable reimbursement award and remanded for a new judgment.
Seek Legal Advice
If you are ending a relationship you believe may qualify as a committed intimate relationship, a skilled Washington family law attorney can advise you of your rights and options. Set up a consultation with Blair & Kim, PLLC by calling (206) 622-6562.