Sunkidd Venture, Inc. v. Snyder-Entel
87 Wash. App. 211, 941 P.2d 16 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A debt for the rental of a family residence, incurred by one spouse during the marriage for the benefit of the marital community, is a 'family expense' under RCW 26.16.205, making both spouses jointly and separately liable for the obligation, even if one spouse did not sign the lease agreement.
Facts:
- In March 1988, William Entel entered into a lease for an apartment with the landlord's agent, Wieber Pacific Management, Inc.
- In June 1988, Mr. Entel married Shannon Snyder-Entel, and the couple began living together in the leased apartment.
- In August 1988, Mr. Entel, without his wife's signature, signed an option form to extend the lease for one year.
- Ms. Snyder-Entel was aware that her husband had extended the lease and assumed they would continue living there.
- During their tenancy, Ms. Snyder-Entel frequently paid the rent from a joint bank account and communicated with the landlord about maintenance issues.
- In October 1988, Ms. Snyder-Entel sent notice that she and her husband were vacating the apartment, breaking the extended lease agreement.
- The landlord's agent subsequently assigned the debt for the unpaid portion of the lease to Sunkidd Venture, Inc. for collection.
Procedural Posture:
- Sunkidd Venture, Inc., as assignee of the landlord, filed a complaint in district court against Shannon Snyder-Entel for damages from a breached lease.
- The district court, after a trial, dismissed Sunkidd's complaint against Ms. Snyder-Entel.
- Sunkidd (appellant) appealed the district court's decision to the Spokane County Superior Court.
- The Superior Court affirmed the district court's dismissal and awarded attorney fees to Ms. Snyder-Entel (appellee).
- Sunkidd (petitioner) sought discretionary review from the Washington Court of Appeals, which the court granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a spouse, who did not sign a residential lease agreement entered into by the other spouse for the benefit of the marital community, separately liable for the debt arising from that lease under the family expense doctrine?
Opinions:
Majority - Schultheis, A.C. J.
Yes. A spouse who did not sign a residential lease is separately liable for the debt because the rental of a family home is a 'family expense' for which both spouses are individually responsible under RCW 26.16.205. There is a general presumption that a debt incurred by either spouse during marriage is a community debt. Mr. Entel entered into the lease extension for the benefit of the marital community, creating a community debt. Under Washington's family expense statute, expenses for family 'necessaries' are chargeable against the separate property of either spouse. Precedent establishes that the rental of a family residence is a necessary family expense. Therefore, the lease obligation was a family expense, making Ms. Snyder-Entel separately liable even though she did not sign the agreement.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Thompson, J.
No. While the lease creates a community debt, liability for rent after the family has moved out should not be considered a 'family expense' that attaches to the non-signing spouse's separate property. The family expense doctrine should apply only to necessaries the family actually uses, such as rent for a dwelling in which the family actually resides. Here, the liability is purely contractual for a period when the family no longer occupied the premises. Therefore, while the debt is a valid community obligation, the creditor's recovery against Ms. Snyder-Entel should be limited to the net equity of the former community property at the time of their divorce, not her separate, post-dissolution assets like current earnings.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the application of Washington's family expense doctrine to residential lease agreements, making it clear that housing is a 'necessary' for which both spouses are individually liable. It expands the liability of a non-signing spouse beyond just rent during occupancy to include damages for breach of the entire lease term. This strengthens the position of landlords in collecting debts from married or recently divorced tenants, as they can pursue the separate assets of either spouse. The dissent, however, raises a significant counterargument, questioning whether purely contractual damages for an unoccupied property should be treated as a 'family expense' in the same way as essentials that the family directly consumed or used.
