§32.06 Committed Intimate Relationship

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§ 32.06 COMMITTED INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP

If the court determines there is a committed intimate relationship (CIR), it will divide community property in a manner that shall appear just and equitable. In re Marriage of Neumiller, 183 Wn. App. 914, 921, 335 P.3d 1019, 1023 (2014). Property acquired during a CIR is presumed to be community-like. Muridan v. Redl, 3 Wn. App. 2d 44, 56, 413 P.3d 1072 (2018). However, unlike in a marriage, any separate property owned by either party is not before the court for distribution. Each party keeps his or her own separate property. In re Marriage of Byerley, 183 Wn. App. 677, 685, 334 P.3d 108 (2014).

The modern line of CIR cases dates back to In re Marriage of Lindsey, 101 Wn.2d 299, 678 P.2d 328, 329 (1984), which used the term "meretricious relationship," instead of CIR. In Lindsey, the couple lived together for close to two years before marriage. During this time, they logged the husband's separate property realty and built a barn/shop with the proceeds. Id. at 300-01. On the wedding date, the husband had substantial separate property holdings, while the wife had virtually none. Id. During the marriage, the barn/shop burned and netted almost $86,000 in insurance proceeds. Id. at 306.

Comment: What is in a name? The courts no longer use "meretricious relationship," defined in this context as "of or relating to a prostitute [or] having the nature of prostitution." MERRIAM-WEBSTER.COM DICTIONARY, MERRIAM-WEBSTER, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/meretricious (last visited Nov. 5, 2020). The correct term is now "committed intimate relationship." The Supreme Court adopted this term in a footnote: "While this court has previously referred to such relationships as 'meretricious', we, like the Court of Appeals, recognize the term's negative connotation. . . . Accordingly, we too substitute the term 'committed intimate relationship,' which accurately describes the status of the parties and is less derogatory." Olver v. Fowler, 161 Wn.2d 655, 657 n.1, 168 P.3d 348 (2007) (citations omitted).

The trial court found that all the major assets before the court were either the husband's separate property or property acquired with separate property funds or loans. Marriage of Lindsey, 101 Wn.2d at 301. Citing the Creasman presumption, see Creasman v. Boyle, 31 Wn.2d 345, 196 P.2d 835 (1984), the court then awarded all the separate property to the husband, ignoring any contribution the wife may have made to the construction...