Articles

What Sod Hath Brought Together - Property Division for Unmarried Couples

You may know an unmarried couple (let’s call them Tim and Tina) in a similar situation. They met fifteen years ago after they both separated from their spouses, but before either of them divorced. Within a year of meeting, Tim and Tina set up house in an apartment up above Tim’s place of business. Tim continued to run his business, Tina kept working at her well-paid job, and both of them contributed to furnishing the apartment. Tina brought in furniture, personal belongings, and kitchenware. She also bought and installed vinyl flooring and carpeting.

Both Tina and Tim worked at maintaining and improving their home, frequently entertained a growing social group, and basically held themselves out as a domestic couple.

After several years, Tim bought a new home in the country; the title was in his name only. Tim paid the mortgage and utilities, and Tina paid for food and supplies. Tina helped design and decorate the home. Five years after they moved in together, Tim divorced his wife. He and Tina discussed marriage, but there was never a formal proposal. Three years later, Tina began agitating to set a wedding date, and Tim refused. This led to a series of vigorous arguments, a couple of break-ups, and ultimately a permanent split.

At the time they split up, the value of the personal property they had jointly purchased and used was about $100,000; the net value of the home they lived in was about $200,000. Tina filed a petition in court asking that their relationship be treated as a "meretricious relationship" and that the property be split up as if it were the community property of a married couple.

Now for the pop-quiz: (1) Do the courts ever make property divisions like the one requested by Tina? (2) If so, what are the basic rules for such a division? And (3) What would the courts do in a case like that of Tim and Tina?

(1) The courts do make property divisions for personal and real property accumulated by long-term unmarried couples.

The courts do make such decisions, basically using the same rules for the division of community property in marriages. For unmarried couples, the relationship is called a "meretricious relationship" instead of a "marriage." The jointly-held property is called "quasi-community property" instead of "community property."

(2) Such property is basically divided equally between the parties.

Personal and real property which was paid for jointly is treated as jointly owned, sometimes even if the title is only in one name. Property, which was purchased by only one party, can be treated as quasi-community property if, over a long period of time, it is held jointly and maintained with joint funds.

(3) Tim and Tina would probably be treated as individuals, not a couple.

Each case is decided on its own individual facts. In the scenario above, the court would likely decline to treat the relationship as meretricious, and would not award half of the appreciated value of the real property to Tina. At least that is what Division 2 of the Washington State Court of Appeals would likely do. In a very similar case, the appeals court recently reversed a trial court in "Tina’s" favor. The Court of Appeals noted that her name did not appear on any loan or title documents, "Tim" refused to marry her, and neither ever claimed to be engaged. "In summary," said the court, "there is not sufficient evidence that the parties intended their relationship to be "marriage-like." In re Pennington, 971 P.2d 98 (Feb. 5, 1999).