Connell v. Francisco
898 P.2d 831 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Upon the termination of a meretricious relationship, a court may only distribute property that would have been characterized as community property had the parties been married. All property acquired during such a relationship is presumed to be owned by both parties, but this presumption is rebuttable.
Facts:
- Petitioner Richard Francisco and Respondent Shannon Connell met in June 1983 and began living together in November 1983.
- At the start of their relationship, Francisco had a net worth of approximately $1,300,000, while Connell owned clothing and a leasehold interest in a New York apartment.
- In 1985, Francisco's company purchased an inn on Whidbey Island, Washington, and in 1986, Connell and Francisco moved there to manage and live at the inn.
- The couple cohabited on Whidbey Island until March 1990, presenting themselves to the community as married; Francisco gave Connell an engagement ring and named her as the beneficiary of his will.
- From 1986 to 1988, Connell managed the inn without compensation, and from 1989 to 1990, she received a salary of $400 per week.
- During their time on Whidbey Island, Francisco acquired several pieces of real property in his name or his company's name, and his net worth increased by approximately $1,400,000.
- Connell did not contribute financially to the purchase of any of the properties acquired during the relationship.
- The relationship ended in March 1990, at which time Connell had approximately $20,000 in savings and jewelry, while Francisco's net worth was over $2,700,000.
Procedural Posture:
- Shannon Connell filed a lawsuit against Richard Francisco in the Island County Superior Court (trial court), seeking a just and equitable distribution of property acquired during their relationship.
- The Superior Court determined a meretricious relationship existed but limited distribution to the increased value of Francisco's pension, finding Connell had not proven her interest in other assets.
- Connell, as appellant, appealed to the Washington Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the Superior Court, holding that all property, including pre-relationship separate property, could be distributed and that a community-property-like presumption should apply to all property acquired during the relationship.
- Francisco, as petitioner, petitioned the Supreme Court of Washington for discretionary review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In distributing property after a meretricious relationship, is a court (1) limited to distributing only property acquired during the relationship that would have been community property, and (2) required to apply a presumption that such property is jointly owned?
Opinions:
Majority - Guy, J.
Yes. Upon the termination of a meretricious relationship, a court's authority to distribute property is limited to that which would have been community property had the parties been married, and a rebuttable presumption arises that all property acquired during the relationship is owned by both parties. A meretricious relationship is not a marriage, so the laws for marital property distribution do not directly apply, although they provide guidance. The court rejected the old 'Creasman presumption' that title controls ownership, as this would unjustly enrich the titled party. Instead, to give effect to the equitable principles of In re Marriage of Lindsey, property acquired during the relationship is presumed to be jointly owned. However, to respect the parties' choice not to marry, property owned by each party prior to the relationship (separate property) is not subject to distribution.
Dissenting - Utter, J.
No. A court should be able to make a just and equitable distribution of all property, including property that would be characterized as separate, following a meretricious relationship. The majority's new rule, which limits distribution to community-like property, is uncertain in application and will interfere with the courts' ability to achieve a just and equitable outcome as required by Lindsey. The holding in Lindsey was intended to mirror the entire statutory scheme for marriage dissolution, which allows for the distribution of both separate and community property to ensure fairness. The majority's approach unnecessarily complicates the distribution and creates an artificial distinction that undermines the core goal of equity.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the scope of property distribution following the dissolution of a non-marital, long-term relationship in Washington. It establishes a hybrid legal framework that borrows key principles from community property law but stops short of equating cohabitation with marriage. By limiting distribution to property acquired during the relationship, the court respects the couple's decision not to marry and protects pre-existing separate assets. However, by adopting a community-property-like presumption of joint ownership for assets acquired during the relationship, it prevents the unjust enrichment of the partner who holds legal title and recognizes the non-financial contributions of the other partner. This decision provides a crucial balance, offering equitable protection to unmarried partners while maintaining a legal distinction between meretricious relationships and formal marriages.
Unlock the full brief for Connell v. Francisco