In the Matter of the Committed Intimate Relationship of: Elizabeth York & David Donovick, 40141-3

Elizabeth York and David Donovick cohabitated between April 2013 and February 2021, holding themselves out as a couple and sharing property and expenses.
After the relationship ended, York filed a petition in Washington state court to dissolve their alleged committed intimate relationship (CIR) and equitably divide property and debts.
At the time of the petition, both parties resided in Idaho, not Washington.
Donovick responded, contested the CIR’s existence, and filed his own claims (breach of contract, quantum meruit, equitable lien, tortious interference), which were consolidated for trial.
The trial court found a CIR existed, divided property and debts, and denied all of Donovick’s claims for relief.
Donovick appealed, raising issues of subject matter jurisdiction, the existence of a CIR, the property division, and denial of his claims.

Issue	Plaintiff’s Argument (Donovick)	Defendant’s Argument (York)	Held
Subject Matter Jurisdiction	Court lacked jurisdiction because neither party resided in Washington at filing; CIR dissolution should have same residency requirement as marriage.	Superior courts have general jurisdiction over CIRs, which are judicially created, not statutory; no residency requirement applies.	Superior court had subject matter jurisdiction under constitutional general jurisdiction.
Existence of a CIR	Parties weren’t in a CIR due to infidelity and York moving in with another man after breakup.	Relationship met all CIR factors: cohabitation, pooled resources, long-term commitment, public presentation as a couple.	CIR existed from 2013 to 2021; infidelity did not outweigh other factors.
Equitable Distribution of Property	Property division was inequitable due to lack of financial disclosure by York.	No procedural or substantive error; Donovick did not object at trial or show prejudice.	No manifest error; property division affirmed.
Denial of Claims (Contract/ Quantum Meruit)	If court lacked CIR jurisdiction, his contract and quantum meruit claims should prevail.	Claims properly denied on merits; jurisdiction was proper.	Claims denied; arguments on these points were inadequately briefed on appeal.

Connell v. Francisco, 127 Wn.2d 339 (Wash. 1995) (establishes the factors for identifying committed intimate relationships and the principle of equitable property division at dissolution)
In re Marriage of Pennington, 142 Wn.2d 592 (Wash. 2000) (addresses the mixed question of law and fact in determining the existence of a CIR)
State v. Stenson, 132 Wn.2d 668 (Wash. 1997) (unchallenged findings of fact are accepted as true on appeal)
State v. Homan, 181 Wn.2d 102 (Wash. 2014) (stands for treating unchallenged findings as verities on appeal)
Amy v. Kmart of Wash. LLC, 153 Wn. App. 846 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009) (subject matter jurisdiction is rarely lacking in Washington courts)