[WSBARP] Case Law on CIR-Comm. Prop.

[Eric Nelsen]

CIR law is a bit of a thicket. To start out, cribbed from a fantastic quickcite compendium that Doug Becker maintains on the family law listserve:

"We conclude that the equitable doctrine of CIR is subject to a three-year statute of limitations. A party must sue to establish that the relationship existed within three years of the end of the relationship."
In re Matter of Kelley, 170 Wn. App. 722, 737, 287 P.3d 12 (2012), review denied, 176 Wn.2d 1018, 297 P.3d 706 (2013)
"In deciding whether the parties had a committed intimate relationship, courts consider several nonexclusive factors, none of which necessarily has more significance than another: (1) continuity of cohabitation; (2) duration of the relationship; (3) purpose of the relationship; (4) pooling of resources and services for joint projects; and (5) the intent of the parties. Pennington, 142 Wn.2d at 601-05. Courts should not apply these factors in a hypertechnical fashion, but must base the determination on the particular circumstances of each case. Pennington, 142 Wn.2d at 602."
In re Marriage of Byerley, 183 Wn. App. 677, 686, 334 P.3d 108 (2014);
Pennington v. Pennington, 142 Wn.2d 592, 601, 14 P.3d 764 (2000);
Connell v. Francisco, 127 Wn.2d 339, 346, 898 P.2d 831 (1995)
"[W]e hold that [a committed, intimate] relationship cannot in any event commence prior to the date the parties begin living together. Precedent establishes cohabitation as a sine qua non of a committed intimate relationship: A committed intimate relationship requires by definition that 'both parties cohabit with knowledge that a lawful marriage between them does not exist.' Connell, 127 Wn.2d at 346 (emphasis added)."
In re Marriage of Byerley, 183 Wn. App. 677, 689, 334 P.3d 108 (2014);
Connell v. Francisco, 127 Wn.2d 339, 346, 898 P.2d 831 (1995)
"A meretricious relationship is a stable, marital-like relationship where both parties cohabit with knowledge that a lawful marriage between them does not exist. In re Marriage of Lindsey, 101 Wash.2d 299, 304, 678 P.2d 328 (1984); Harry M. Cross, Community Property Law in Washington (Revised 1985), 61 Wash.L.Rev. 13, 23 (1986)."
Connell v. Francisco, 127 Wn.2d 339, 346, 898 P.2d 831, 127 Wn.2d 339 (1995)

Re inheritance issues, see
Drown v. Boone (Langeland Estate), 177 Wn.App. 315, 312 P.3d 657 (Div. 1 2013),


Sincerely,

Eric

Eric C. Nelsen
SAYRE LAW OFFICES, PLLC
1320 University St
Seattle WA  98101-2837
phone 206-625-0092
fax 206-625-9040



From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Justin Monro
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 11:27 AM
To: 'wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com'
Subject: [WSBARP] Case Law on CIR-Comm. Prop.

Listmates:

I represent an estate. Father died no will, he wasn't married. I name one of the adult children as PR.

Care taker filed complaint against estate claiming through Committed Intimate Relationship and RCW 11.96A that she is entitled to all of the community property from the estate.

Is there any case law on this that someone can share or point me too. Thank you!

Sincerely,


Justin K. Monro
Attorney at Law
The Monro Law Firm P.S. Inc.
1830 Bickford Ave. Ste 204
Snohomish, WA 98290
P:360.863.3728
F:360.863.3985

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail message contains information belonging to The Monro Law Firm P.S. Inc. which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure.  The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above.  If you think that you have received this message in error, please contact the sender.  If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20160128/90c54678/attachment.html>