Sunkidd Venture Inc. v. Snyder-Entel

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 3, Panel Seven · 1997 · Family Law

Family Lawcommunity debtfamily expensenecessarieslease extensionspousal liabilityseparate liabilitymarital community

Facts

William Entel signed an apartment lease extension after marrying Shannon Snyder-Entel, and the couple was then living together in the apartment. Although Ms. Snyder-Entel did not sign the extension, she knew the landlord intended to terminate the tenancy, learned from her husband that he had extended the lease, and assumed they would remain another year. During the tenancy, she usually paid rent from a joint account, and the couple lived there until October 1988, when she gave notice they would vacate. After the landlord charged damages for the remaining lease term and assigned the debt to Sunkidd, Sunkidd sued Ms. Snyder-Entel individually.

Issue

Whether a lease extension for the marital residence, signed only by the husband during marriage, created an obligation that could be enforced against the wife's separate property under the family expense statute. More specifically, the question was whether the lease extension was a community debt and also a family expense under RCW 26.16.205.

Rule

A debt incurred by either spouse during marriage is presumed to be a community debt, and that presumption is rebutted only by clear and convincing evidence that the debt was not contracted for community benefit. The key test is whether, when the obligation was entered, there was a reasonable expectation that the community would receive a material benefit; actual benefit is unnecessary. If the obligation is a family expense under RCW 26.16.205—meaning a necessary item for the family's sustenance, support, or ordinary requirements—then it may be enforced against the separate property of either spouse, even if only one spouse incurred it. Rental of the family residence is a recognized family expense.

🔒

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.

In Tacoma, Daniel Ruiz signed a 10-month lease for an apartment three weeks after marrying Leah Ruiz. The couple moved in together immediately, but only Daniel signed the lease. Four months later, the landlord sued Leah alone for unpaid rent after the couple left early.

Under the majority rule, what is the strongest argument that Leah may be held liable?

Explanation. A debt incurred by either spouse during marriage is presumed to be a community debt. That presumption is rebutted only by clear and convincing evidence that the obligation was not contracted for community benefit. Housing for the marital household creates a reasonable expectation of material community benefit, and rent for the family residence is a family expense under RCW 26.16.205. Because family expenses may be enforced against the separate property of either spouse, Leah may be sued separately even though she did not sign. (Derived from Sunkidd Venture Inc. v. Snyder-Entel (n.d.).)