§ 6.06 COMMITTED INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§ 6.06 COMMITTED INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS

As discussed in Chapter 2, § 2.07, the Washington courts have been adjudicating property disputes between parties to a committed intimate relationship (CIR) under a doctrine of "equitable division" since 1984. Property acquired during a CIR is presumed to be co-owned and is subject to equitable division. Connell v. Francisco, 127 Wn.2d 339, 351, 898 P.2d 831 (1995). The equitable rights are vested such that when the CIR ends by the death of one or both partners, the estate of the decedent(s) contain(s) the decedent's equitable share of the CIR property. Olver v. Fowler, 161 Wn.2d 655, 670-71, 168 P.3d 348 (2007).

Given these developments, we would be remiss in this chapter were we not to address whether the standard rules for adjudicating creditors' rights with regard to community property also apply to CIR property. Unfortunately, there is little law on the question as of yet.

This question was latent in the Olver case, in which partners in a CIR died simultaneously in a car crash allegedly caused by the negligence of one of them, Cung Ho. Id. During the probate of Cung's estate, the father of one of the vehicle occupants who survived brought a lawsuit against Cung and intervened in the probate, opposing equitable division of property titled in Cung's name, lest division put some of the property out...