Connell v. Francisco

Supreme Court of Washington · 1995 · Family Law

Family LawProperty DistributionMeretricious Relationshipsmeretricious relationshipcohabitationcommunity-property-like presumptionseparate propertyjust and equitable distribution

Facts

Connell and Francisco cohabited in a stable marital-like relationship from 1983 until 1990, including on Whidbey Island from 1986 onward. During the relationship, Francisco acquired multiple parcels of real property and other wealth, while Connell managed and worked extensively at the Whidbey Inn, initially without compensation and later for $400 per week. Title to the acquired real property was held in Francisco's name or in the name of Prince Productions, Inc., and Connell made no direct financial contribution to the purchases. After the relationship ended, Connell sought an equitable share of property acquired during the relationship.

Issue

When a meretricious relationship ends, may the trial court distribute property owned by either party before the relationship began, and is there a rebuttable presumption that property acquired during the relationship is jointly owned? More broadly, to what extent may principles from RCW 26.09.080 be applied by analogy in distributing property after a meretricious relationship?

Rule

After a trial court finds a meretricious relationship, it must evaluate each party's interest in property acquired during the relationship and make a just and equitable distribution of property that would have been characterized as community property had the parties been married. Property owned before the relationship, and property acquired during the relationship by gift, bequest, devise, or descent with its rents, issues, and profits, is not before the court for division. All other property acquired during the meretricious relationship is presumed to be owned by both parties, though that presumption is rebuttable, and community-like contributions to separate property may create a right of reimbursement.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nina Patel and Owen Mercer lived together in Spokane, Washington, for seven years in a stable marital-like relationship, sharing household expenses and working together on several renovation projects. During the relationship, Owen purchased a duplex in his name alone using wages he earned while they were living together.

When the relationship ends, which is the strongest statement about how a court should treat the duplex?

Explanation. Once a meretricious relationship is found, property acquired during the relationship is presumptively owned by both parties, and title in one name alone does not defeat that presumption. The presumption is rebuttable, but the mere fact that Owen alone holds title is insufficient. The court may then make a just and equitable distribution of property that would have been community property if the parties had been married.