In re the Domestic Partnership of Walsh
335 P.3d 984
Wash. Ct. App.2014Background
- Walsh and Reynolds cohabited from 1988–2010, registered as California domestic partners in 2000 and as Washington domestic partners on August 20, 2009, separated March 14, 2010, and dissolved in 2011.
- Walsh (higher-earning orthopedic surgeon) paid most household expenses, school and adoption costs, and made substantial payments to Reynolds over many years; Reynolds contributed nonfinancially (housekeeping, childcare, remodeling sweat equity).
- The parties purchased a Federal Way home in 2003 with both names on the deed stating “joint tenants with right of survivorship,” but the mortgage was solely in Walsh’s name.
- At trial the court found an "equity relationship" existed from January 1, 2005 to August 20, 2009 (so property acquired then was treated as community/equitable), held the Federal Way property was held as tenants in common, split proceeds ~51.9% Walsh / 48.1% Reynolds, and awarded Reynolds attorney fees and costs.
- On appeal Walsh challenged the equity-relationship finding (scope and start date), the Federal Way title characterization and split, and the fee award; Reynolds cross-appealed seeking an earlier start date for the equity relationship.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Walsh) | Defendant's Argument (Reynolds) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Application of common-law "equity relationship" to pre-Washington registration period | Equity rights apply only from Washington registration or statute; court erred applying equity doctrine to pre-2008/2009 period | Common-law equity relationship doctrine applies to long-term cohabitation regardless of statutory registration; California registration and conduct support earlier application | Court affirmed use of the common-law "equity relationship" doctrine to pre-WA registration periods (i.e., it can apply to pre-2008 periods) |
| 2. Start date of the equity relationship (when separate property converted to community) | Court erred by starting the equity relationship on Jan 1, 2005 (tied to CA statutory change); should start at WA registration (Aug 20, 2009) or otherwise later | Equity relationship existed much earlier (1988 or at least from CA registration in 2000); court should have applied Long factors to entire relationship | Court held trial court erred in limiting start to 2005; remanded to reconsider whether equity relationship began earlier (including pre-2005/CA period) and to reallocate property accordingly |
| 3. Characterization of Federal Way property and distribution of sale proceeds | Walsh: she contributed all financial funds (mortgage, reconstruction) so should receive 100% or greater share; title language creates joint tenancy | Reynolds: title language alone insufficient; Walsh’s sole mortgage liability severs joint tenancy; Reynolds entitled to near 50% given nonfinancial contributions and equitable distribution | Court held property was tenancy in common (mortgage liability defeated unities for joint tenancy) and trial court did not abuse discretion in near‑50/50 split; allocation stands subject to remand adjustments if community period extended |
| 4. Award of attorney fees and costs to Reynolds | Trial court lacked authority or misapplied fee statute; fees excessive | Trial court properly applied RCW 26.09.140 (fee‑shifting) to dissolution (precipitating event 2011 petition) and assessed need/ability to pay | Court affirmed award of trial attorney fees and costs to Reynolds and granted Reynolds fees/costs on appeal (subject to showing need and documentation) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Meretricious Relationship of Long, 158 Wn. App. 919 (2010) (sets nonexclusive factors for evaluating an "equity/meretricious" relationship)
- Connell v. Francisco, 127 Wn.2d 339 (1995) (discusses common‑law recognition of marital‑like cohabitation and relevant factors)
- In re Pennington, 142 Wn.2d 592 (2000) (standards for reviewing trial court findings in equitable property distribution)
- In re Marriage of Lindsey, 101 Wn.2d 299 (1984) (framework for just and equitable distribution of property in nonmarital equitable claims)
- Vasquez v. Hawthorne, 145 Wn.2d 103 (2001) (equitable claims focus on parties' equities, not legality of relationship)
- Merrick v. Peterson, 25 Wn. App. 248 (1980) (joint‑tenancy requires four unities; inconsistent conduct can convert to tenancy in common)
- In re Marriage of Farmer, 172 Wn.2d 616 (2011) (trial court’s broad discretion to divide assets "just and equitable")