community property presumption in Washington

2024“When money in a single account cannot be apportioned to separate and community sources, the community property presumption will render the entire fund community property.” In re Marriage of Pearson-Maines, 70 Wn.

2024App. 860, 866-67 , 855 P.2d 1210 (1993).

2021In re Marriage of Chumbley, 150 Wn.2d 1, 5 , 74 P.3d 129 (2003).

2019In re Marriage of Chumbley, 150 Wn.2d 1, 5 , 74 P.3d 129 (2003).

2021In re Marriage of Chumbley, 150 Wn.2d 1, 5 , 74 P.3d 129 (2003).

2019In re Marriage of Chumbley, 150 Wn.2d 1, 5 , 74 P.3d 129 (2003).

2025Schwarz, 192 Wn.

2023A party may rebut the community property presumption “by offering clear and convincing evidence that the property was acquired with separate funds.” Schwarz, 192 Wn.

2023Thus, contrary to James’s assertion, it is the community property presumption—not the separate property presumption—that applies to the characterization of the duplexes. “[T]he character of property as separate or community property is determined at the date of acquisition.” Borghi, 167 Wn.2d at 484 .

2020But “the name on a deed or title does not determine the separate or community character of the property, or even provide much evidence.”34 The critical question is whether clear and convincing evidence shows the grantor spouse’s intent to change the property from community to separate.35 Because spousal intent is a question of fact, Mkrtchyan’s argument is actually a challenge 32See State of Cal. v. Tax Comm’n of State, 55 Wn.2d 155, 158 , 346 P.2d 1006 (1959) (shares of stock are personal property). ~ Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. Bosley, 118 Wn.2d 801, 808 , 828 P.2d 549 (1992). ~ Borqhi, 16

2022In re Estate of Smith, 73 Wn.2d 629, 631 , 440 P.2d 179 (1968); In re Marriage of Pearson-Maines, 70 Wn.

2022In re Estate of Smith, 73 Wn.2d 629, 631 , 440 P.2d 179 (1968); In re Marriage of Pearson-Maines, 70 Wn.

1981Further, the burden of overcoming the community property presumption rests upon the spouse asserting the separate nature of the property acquired during the marriage and convincing evidence is "not met by the mere self-serving declaration of the spouse claiming the property in question that he acquired it from separate funds and a showing that separate funds were available for that purpose." Berol v. Berol, 37 Wn.2d 380, 382 , 223 P.2d 1055 (1950).

1981Further, the burden of overcoming the community property presumption rests upon the spouse asserting the separate nature of the property acquired during the marriage and convincing evidence is "not met by the mere self-serving declaration of the spouse claiming the property in question that he acquired it from separate funds and a showing that separate funds were available for that purpose." Berol v. Berol, 37 Wn.2d 380, 382 , 223 P.2d 1055 (1950).

2001Rustad, 61 Wash.2d at 180 , 377 P.2d 414 ; Cross, supra, at 92; see also RCW 26.16.140.

2001Rustad, 61 Wn.2d at 180 ; Cross, supra, at 92; see also RCW 26.16.140.

2001Consistent with the requirements for a valid gift, this proof must include evidence of “an intention on the part of the donor to presently give.” Henderson v. Tagg, 68 Wn.2d 188, 192 , 412 P.2d 112 (1966).

2001Consistent with the requirements for a valid gift, this proof must include evidence of “an intention on the part of the donor to presently give.” Henderson v. Tagg, 68 Wn.2d 188, 192 , 412 P.2d 112 (1966).

2001But in order to overcome the strong community property presumption evidence of a gift must be "clear, definite, and convincing." Id. at 439 ; Cross, supra, at 109.

2001But, in order to overcome the strong community property presumption, evidence of a gift must be “clear, definite, and convincing.” Id. at 439 ; Cross, supra, at 109.

2020But “the name on a deed or title does not determine the separate or community character of the property, or even provide much evidence.”34 The critical question is whether clear and convincing evidence shows the grantor spouse’s intent to change the property from community to separate.35 Because spousal intent is a question of fact, Mkrtchyan’s argument is actually a challenge 32See State of Cal. v. Tax Comm’n of State, 55 Wn.2d 155, 158 , 346 P.2d 1006 (1959) (shares of stock are personal property). ~ Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. Bosley, 118 Wn.2d 801, 808 , 828 P.2d 549 (1992). ~ Borqhi, 16

2020But “the name on a deed or title does not determine the separate or community character of the property, or even provide much evidence.”34 The critical question is whether clear and convincing evidence shows the grantor spouse’s intent to change the property from community to separate.35 Because spousal intent is a question of fact, Mkrtchyan’s argument is actually a challenge 32See State of Cal. v. Tax Comm’n of State, 55 Wn.2d 155, 158 , 346 P.2d 1006 (1959) (shares of stock are personal property). ~ Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. Bosley, 118 Wn.2d 801, 808 , 828 P.2d 549 (1992). ~ Borqhi, 16

2020But “the name on a deed or title does not determine the separate or community character of the property, or even provide much evidence.”34 The critical question is whether clear and convincing evidence shows the grantor spouse’s intent to change the property from community to separate.35 Because spousal intent is a question of fact, Mkrtchyan’s argument is actually a challenge 32See State of Cal. v. Tax Comm’n of State, 55 Wn.2d 155, 158 , 346 P.2d 1006 (1959) (shares of stock are personal property). ~ Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. Bosley, 118 Wn.2d 801, 808 , 828 P.2d 549 (1992). ~ Borqhi, 16

2020But “the name on a deed or title does not determine the separate or community character of the property, or even provide much evidence.”34 The critical question is whether clear and convincing evidence shows the grantor spouse’s intent to change the property from community to separate.35 Because spousal intent is a question of fact, Mkrtchyan’s argument is actually a challenge 32See State of Cal. v. Tax Comm’n of State, 55 Wn.2d 155, 158 , 346 P.2d 1006 (1959) (shares of stock are personal property). ~ Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. Bosley, 118 Wn.2d 801, 808 , 828 P.2d 549 (1992). ~ Borqhi, 16

2018When a party deposits separate funds in a shared account, such that "money in a single account cannot be apportioned to separate and community sources, the community property presumption will render the entire fund community property."16 But the funds will retain their separate property character if "the sources of the deposits can be traced and apportioned, and the use of withdrawals for separate or community purposes can be identified."16 In such 14 Id. at 871 .

2016App. 646, 652 , 208 P.3d 1236 (2009).

2016Skarbek, 100 Wn.

2016Its memorandum decision characterized the testimony offered on the Western National IRA as “[Convoluted and confusing” and found that Ms. Champagne had failed to rebut the community property presumption. 87 Elsewhere, the court lamented that “[m\uch of the testimony at trial” was convoluted and confusing, and that the petitioner and respondent “provided the Court with almost none of the tools necessary to resolve” many of the complex issues. 88 ¶66 “A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is manifestly unreasonable or exercised on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons, i.e.,

2014RCW 26. 16. 030; LAWS OF 2008, ch. 6, § 604. 17 Before the legislature' s statutory recognition of domestic partnerships in 2008, however, Washington courts recognized a common law " equity relationship" in a ' stable, marital - like relationship where both parties cohabit with 16 See also Olver, 161 Wn.2d at 668 -69 ( " Washington common law has evolved to look beyond how property is titled, requiring equitable distribution of property that would have been community property had the partners been married. "). 17 RCW 26. 60. 090 expressly grants reciprocity to domestic partnerships already exi

1988RCW 26.16.140 provides that the respective earnings of a husband and wife who are living separate and apart "shall be the separate property of each." See Beakley v. Bremerton, 5 Wn.2d 670, 105 P.2d 40 (1940); Hokenson v. Hokenson, 23 Wn.2d 908 , 162 P.2d 592 (1945).

1988RCW 26.16.140 provides that the respective earnings of a husband and wife who are living separate and apart "shall be the separate property of each." See Beakley v. Bremerton, 5 Wn.2d 670, 105 P.2d 40 (1940); Hokenson v. Hokenson, 23 Wn.2d 908 , 162 P.2d 592 (1945).

1988RCW 26.16.140 provides that the respective earnings of a husband and wife who are living separate and apart "shall be the separate property of each." See Beakley v. Bremerton, 5 Wn.2d 670, 105 P.2d 40 (1940); Hokenson v. Hokenson, 23 Wn.2d 908 , 162 P.2d 592 (1945).

1988RCW 26.16.140 provides that the respective earnings of a husband and wife who are living separate and apart "shall be the separate property of each." See Beakley v. Bremerton, 5 Wn.2d 670, 105 P.2d 40 (1940); Hokenson v. Hokenson, 23 Wn.2d 908 , 162 P.2d 592 (1945).

1980Credit Union v. Kennedy, 76 Wn.2d 806 , 459 P.2d 32 (1969).

1980Credit Union v. Kennedy, 76 Wn.2d 806 , 459 P.2d 32 (1969).

1977Blood v. Blood, 69 Wn.2d 680 , 419 P.2d 1006 (1966); Shaffer v. Shaffer, 43 Wn.2d 629 , 262 P.2d 763 (1953); Pollock v. Pollock, 7 Wn.

1977Blood v. Blood, 69 Wn.2d 680 , 419 P.2d 1006 (1966); Shaffer v. Shaffer, 43 Wn.2d 629 , 262 P.2d 763 (1953); Pollock v. Pollock, 7 Wn.

1977Blood v. Blood, 69 Wn.2d 680 , 419 P.2d 1006 (1966); Shaffer v. Shaffer, 43 Wn.2d 629 , 262 P.2d 763 (1953); Pollock v. Pollock, 7 Wn.

1977Blood v. Blood, 69 Wn.2d 680 , 419 P.2d 1006 (1966); Shaffer v. Shaffer, 43 Wn.2d 629 , 262 P.2d 763 (1953); Pollock v. Pollock, 7 Wn.

1977Blood v. Blood, 69 Wn.2d 680 , 419 P.2d 1006 (1966); Shaffer v. Shaffer, 43 Wn.2d 629 , 262 P.2d 763 (1953); Pollock v. Pollock, 7 Wn.