[WSBAPT] Intestate Succession

Wed Sep 17 12:01:17 PDT 2025

Nice summary Dalynne!
I would just add-if the CIR is established, note that the partner's claim still is not an inheritance, but is a direct property right to co-ownership of "community-like" property. In short, the existence of a CIR creates an inventory question for the estate, not an inheritance issue. "Community-like" property is property that, had the decedent and partner been married, would have been considered community property. So you basically apply the community property rules to determine what might or might not be community-like. The decedent's separate property is still theirs and belongs to their Estate.
Once you have the list of potentially community-like assets, then the Court is required to make an equitable division of that property between the partner and the decedent's estate. In re Estate of Langeland, 177 Wn. App. 315, 312 P.3d 657 (2013). Supposedly the court is supposed to apply the equitable factors used in a divorce-but the problem is, those equitable factors rest heavily on the assumption of two people having future needs, and they don't match well to a division between an estate and a surviving partner.
Because it's an equitable decision by the court, it's basically a free-for-all to divide the community-like property. Whatever reasons you can come up with for an equal or unequal division is up for grabs. I can imagine scenarios where there has been a long-time CIR, total commingling of resources and assets, purchase of property during the relationship, and arguing on that basis that the "equitable" division is 100% to the survivor and 0% to the Estate. On the other hand, I can imagine scenarios where the survivor has significant separate property of their own and the decedent had kids from a prior relationship, where the survivor should get much less than 50% of the community-like property and the rest should go to the kids.
Sincerely,

Eric

Eric C. Nelsen
Sayre Law Offices, PLLC
1417 31st Ave South
Seattle WA 98144-3909
206-625-0092
eric at sayrelawoffices.com<mailto:eric at sayrelawoffices.com>

From: wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Dalynne Singleton
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 11:37 AM
To: WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBAPT] Intestate Succession

Simple answer is yes and depends.
The CIR rules do not require to be registered to have valid claims, and there are succinct guidelines on who is a CIR.  According to Washington caselaw, a CIR is defined as a stable, marital-like relationship in which both parties live together with knowledge that a lawful marriage doesn't exist.  Marriage of Pennington.  Someone trying to prove a CIR existed must provide evidence regarding the following five factors.   The courts require consideration of each factor, with no one factor being conclusive.  Cohabitation (usually 7 years or more) is important and to be considered with your facts:
1.            Continuous cohabitation:
o             Sporadic cohabitation - instances where parties did not live together continuously will count against this. Pennington
o             Periods of separation -the court will look at the ratio of months apart / months together. In re Long and Fregeau.
o             The court will also consider disputes and inconsistencies in the dates of cohabitation to make a CIR less likely. Byerley v. Cail.
2.            Duration of relationship - relationship not of sufficient duration to be considered stable and marital-like.
3.            Purpose of relationship - parties did not intend to "build a life together" in the marital sense.
4.            Pooling of resources and services for joint projects (continuous pooling is necessary - Pennington at 604-5).
o             An oral agreement to keep incomes and property separate, if performed, can rebut the presumption that property acquired during the relationship is community-like. In re G.W.-F., 170 Wash.App. 631, 638-39 (2012).
o             Must establish with clear and convincing evidence the existence of the agreement, and that the parties mutually observed the terms of the agreement throughout the relationship. In re G.W.-F. at 638.
o             If parties only commingled resources for living expenses, that can be used to undermine CIR claim as it is not pooling resources like a married couple. Chesterfield v. Nash, 96 Wash.App. 103 (1999)
5.            Intent of the parties (one party's refusal to marry, coupled with another party's intent on marriage, does not support the existence of a mutual intent to live in a committed intimate relationship - Pennington at 604).
o             Wish to treat the other for all purposes as if they are spouses - Rinaldi at *7.
o             Mutual intent

A TEDRA can be filed by the CIR and the court will examine all of the facts (through testimony and documents, etc.) in each case.  The girlfriend had the burden of proving a CIR.  However, once she provides clear and convincing evidence of the existence of a CIR, the PR would have the burden of proving the CIR didn't exist.  The clear and convincing standard is a very high burden of proof.
Dalynne Singleton
Dalynne Singleton
Gourley Law Group
Snohomish Escrow/The Exchange Connection
1002 10th Street / PO Box 1091
Snohomish, WA 98291
360.568.5065
360.568.8092  fax
dalynne at glgmail.com<mailto:dalynne at glgmail.com>  Website:  www.glglawgroup.com<http://www.glglawgroup.com/>
Attorney/client meetings will be handled virtually whenever possible.  If you would like to set a consultation, please call/email one my paralegals Valerie valerie at glgmail.com<mailto:valerie at glgmail.com>, Kelly kelly at glgmail.com<mailto:kelly at glgmail.com>, Erica erica at glgmail.com<mailto:erica at glgmail.com>, or Theresa theresa at glgmail.com<mailto:theresa at glgmail.com>.  Co-counsels at GLG are Attorney Carrie Ulrich (carrie at glgmail.com<mailto:carrie at glgmail.com> ), Spencer Clower (spencer at glgmail.com<mailto:spencer at glgmail.com>) and Candace Wilkerson (candace at glgmail.com<mailto:candace at glgmail.com>).  Litigation paralegals are Kristin Jacobs (kristin at glgmail.com<mailto:kristin at glgmail.com>) and Daina Grey (daina at glgmail.com<mailto:daina at glgmail.com>).
LICENSED IN WASHINGTON. IMPORTANT/CONFIDENTIAL: This e-mail message (and any attachments accompanying it) may contain confidential information, including information protected by attorney-client privilege. The information is intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s).  Delivery of this message to anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended to waive any privilege or otherwise detract from the confidentiality of the message.  If you are not the intended recipient, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, do not read, disclose, reproduce, distribute, disseminate or otherwise use this transmission, rather, please promptly notify the sender by reply e-mail, and then destroy all copies of the message and its attachments, if any.
[cid:image001.gif at 01DC27C8.D0B3A990]   [cid:image002.png at 01DC27C8.D0B3A990] [cid:image003.png at 01DC27C8.D0B3A990]    [cid:image004.png at 01DC27C8.D0B3A990]

From: wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> <wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>> On Behalf Of Mark Anderson
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 11:19 AM
To: WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: [WSBAPT] Intestate Succession

Dear All:
Intestate Decedent was not survived by a spouse, children, parents, or siblings.  I understand that, under RCW 11.04, the next heirs in line are the Decedent's aunt(s) and uncle(s).
Prior to his death, Decedent resided with and was closely involved with a woman to whom he was not married.  I am uncertain whether the woman was registered as the Decedent's domestic partner.
If the woman was not registered as the Decedent's domestic partner, does the woman have any rights with respect to the Decedent's Estate?
Thanks in advance for your input here.
Mark B. Anderson
ANDERSON LAW FIRM PLLC
821 Dock Street, Suite 209, PMB 4-12
Tacoma, Washington 98402
+1 253-327-1750
+1 253-327-1751 (fax)
marka at mbaesq.com<mailto:marka at mbaesq.com>
www.mbaesq.com<http://www.mbaesq.com/>
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This transmission is confidential and is intended solely for the use of the individual named recipient. It may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or other confidentiality protection. If you are not the intended recipient, or the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, be advised that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender via e-mail or by telephone at (253) 327-1750 that you have received the message in error, and then delete it. Thank you.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20250917/2a9854f8/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 4337 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20250917/2a9854f8/image001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5410 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20250917/2a9854f8/image002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6082 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20250917/2a9854f8/image003.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 8037 bytes
Desc: image004.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20250917/2a9854f8/image004.png>