Victoria Ann Hostetter v. Michael Richard Hanson
76054-8
| Wash. Ct. App. | Nov 20, 2017Background
- Hanson and Hostetter had an intimate, nonmarital relationship beginning ~1999–2000, living and maintaining multiple properties (cabin, ranch, jointly bought orchard) and pooling cash resources for purchases and upkeep.
- They used largely cash transactions, kept cash on the properties, and produced little financial documentation; testimony conflicted on many facts, including separation date.
- After mediation in 2011 the parties signed a handwritten document allocating some property and tasks; it stated Hostetter had no rights to the cabin or orchard; Hostetter later quitclaimed the orchard.
- Hostetter filed a petition (Aug 7, 2013) to determine existence of a committed intimate relationship (CIR) and property rights; trial court found a CIR existed, awarded orchard to Hanson subject to a $22,500 judgment lien in favor of Hostetter (her testified contribution), and deemed the handwritten post-mediation writing a preliminary, not enforceable, settlement.
- Hanson appealed, challenging (1) sufficiency of evidence for CIR and property award, (2) application of statute-of-limitations burden, and (3) refusal to enforce the written agreement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hostetter) | Defendant's Argument (Hanson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of CIR | Parties cohabitated, pooled resources, intended common household; relationship lasted ~10+ years | No continuous cohabitation; insufficient evidence to show CIR | Court: Substantial evidence supports CIR based on cohabitation, pooling, intent; affirmed |
| Division of orchard property | Hostetter contributed $22,000 to purchase; presumption of joint ownership; equitable distribution | Hanson paid most/all; produced cashier's checks and claimed sole payment | Court credited Hostetter's testimony and awarded orchard to Hanson subject to $22,500 lien for Hostetter's contribution; no abuse of discretion |
| Statute of limitations (3-year) | Petition filed within 3 years if relationship ended Feb 14, 2011 | Relationship ended July 27, 2010; petition therefore time-barred; burden should shift to Hostetter | Court: Burden to prove time-bar ran rested on Hanson; conflicting evidence supported later end date; Hanson failed to meet burden; claim timely |
| Enforceability of handwritten post-mediation writing | Parties intended settlement; writing allocates property/tasks | Writing is preliminary, omits material terms (debts, vehicles, mortgage), and was contingent on further mediation | Court: Writing was a preliminary agreement lacking mutual assent on essential terms; not enforceable; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Pennington v. 142 Wn.2d 592 (Wash. 2000) (announces CIR factors and framework)
- Connell v. Francisco, 127 Wn.2d 339 (Wash. 1995) (sets nonexclusive CIR characteristics)
- In re Kelley & Moesslang, 170 Wn. App. 722 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012) (CIR property distribution and statute of limitations discussion)
- Rivas v. Overlake Hosp. Med. Ctr., 164 Wn.2d 261 (Wash. 2008) (burden rules for affirmative defenses and tolling)
- Morris v. Maks, 69 Wn. App. 865 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993) (when informal writings may constitute binding agreement)