How Washington Recognizes Property Rights Between Unmarried Partners
By McKenzi Hoover | Related Practice: Trust & Estate Litigation
Although Washington state does not recognize "common law marriage,” Washington courts recognize marriage-like relationships between certain unmarried cohabitants. “A committed intimate relationship is a ‘stable, marital-like relationship where both parties cohabit with knowledge that a lawful marriage between them does not exist.’” Witt v. Young, 168 Wn. App. 211, 213, 275 P.3d 1218 (2012) (quoting Connell v. Francisco, 127 Wn.2d 339, 346, 898 P.2d 831 (1995)).
Until 2007, Washington courts referred to these relationships as “meretricious” relationships. In Olver, the Supreme Court accepted the phrase “committed intimate relationship” as more appropriate at the suggestion from the Court of Appeals. Olver v. Fowler, 161 Wn.2d 655, 168 P.3d 348 (2007).
Often abbreviated as “CIR,” a committed intimate relationship can create property rights between unmarried partners. When one partner dies, the property of the deceased partner’s estate may be subject to a CIR claim from the surviving partner. Washington courts evaluate whether a CIR exists using factors such as:
(1) continuous cohabitation
(2) duration of the relationship
(3) purpose of the relationship
(4) pooling of resources and services for mutual benefit
(5) intent of the parties
If a CIR exists, certain property acquired during the relationship may be subject to distribution at the time of death or divorce, as if the parties were married. The assets, sometimes referred to as “community-like property” are subject to equitable distribution by the court and as such can be awarded to the surviving partner regardless of titling, and even in some instances, despite the wishes stated in the deceased partner’s will.
In Connell v. Francisco, 127 Wn.2d 339, 898 P.2d 831 (1995), the Washington Supreme Court explained that marital and community property rules are to be applied to CIRs by analogy. The court also made it clear the only property that is subject to equitable distribution between the parties upon the termination of a CIR is that which would have been community property had the parties been married. The separate property of the partners is not subject to division. Thus, any property acquired prior to the relationship, or acquired by gift, bequest, or inheritance, is generally exempt from any claim for equitable distribution that might otherwise apply due to a CIR.
