Gormley v. Robertson

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 3, Panel Two · 2004 · Property

Propertydivision of property after cohabitationsame-sex cohabitantsmeretricious relationshipmeretricious relationshipsame-sex couplecohabitationproperty division

Facts

Ms. Gormley and Dr. Robertson, two single women, lived together from 1988 to 1998, pooled their resources, used a joint bank account to pay monthly obligations, and acquired property and debt together. In 1993 they bought a home titled only in Dr. Robertson's name for convenience and financing, but mortgage payments and improvements were made with joint funds. They also borrowed $20,000 from Ms. Gormley's father in 1992 to consolidate debts, including one incurred by Dr. Robertson before the relationship. After separation, a dispute arose over the home equity, improvements, personal property retained by Dr. Robertson, and responsibility for debt.

Issue

Does Washington's meretricious relationship doctrine apply to a same-sex couple who cohabited in a stable, marital-like relationship with knowledge that no lawful marriage existed? If so, did the trial court properly divide the parties' property and debt, including awarding a share of home equity, an equitable lien for improvements, and a credit for repayment of the father's loan?

Rule

A meretricious relationship is a stable, marital-like relationship in which both parties cohabit with knowledge that a lawful marriage between them does not exist. The nonexclusive factors for determining whether such a relationship exists are continuous cohabitation, duration of the relationship, purpose of the relationship, pooling of resources and services for joint projects, and the intent of the parties; this doctrine extends to same-sex couples, and courts must make a just and equitable disposition of property acquired during the relationship.

🔒

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.

Erin Walsh and Maya Ibarra, two unmarried women, lived together in Spokane for 11 years. They shared a household budget, deposited their paychecks into a joint account, and used those funds to buy furniture and pay for a condominium titled only in Maya's name because her credit score was higher.

After the relationship ends, Maya argues that equitable distribution under Washington's meretricious relationship doctrine is unavailable because the parties were a same-sex couple who could not lawfully marry. How should a court rule?

Explanation. The majority held that Washington's meretricious relationship doctrine applies to same-sex couples. A meretricious relationship is a stable, marital-like relationship where both parties cohabit with knowledge that no lawful marriage exists. Thus, the parties' inability to lawfully marry does not bar the doctrine; it fits the doctrine's defining premise. If the Connell factors are satisfied, the court may make a just and equitable disposition of property acquired during the relationship. (Derived from Gormley v. Robertson (n.d.).)