Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.080
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
In a proceeding for dissolution of the marriage or domestic partnership, legal separation, declaration of invalidity, or in a proceeding for disposition of property following dissolution of the marriage or the domestic partnership by a court which lacked personal jurisdiction over the absent spouse or absent domestic partner or lacked jurisdiction to dispose of the property, the court shall, without regard to misconduct, make such disposition of the property and the liabilities of the parties, either community or separate, as shall appear just and equitable after considering all relevant factors including, but not limited to:
(1) The nature and extent of the community property;
(2) The nature and extent of the separate property;
(3) The duration of the marriage or domestic partnership; and
(4) The economic circumstances of each spouse or domestic partner at the time the division of property is to become effective, including the desirability of awarding the family home or the right to live therein for reasonable periods to a spouse or domestic partner with whom the children reside the majority of the time.
Notes:
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 398
cases (88 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case: Connell v. Francisco
Connell v. Francisco (1995)
“The Court of Appeals also ruled the analogous application of RCW 26.09.080 by the Superior Court to meretricious relationships would be meaningless without a community-property-like presumption attaching *346 to all property acquired during the relationship.”
In Re the Marriage of Washburn (1984)
“The contribution of the supporting spouse to the attainment of a professional degree by the student spouse is a factor to be considered in dividing property and liabilities pursuant to RCW 26.09.080, or in awarding maintenance pursuant to RCW 26.”
In re the Marriage of Larson (2013)
“We conclude that RCW 26.09.080 does not single out the property’s character or any other factor to be given more weight.”
In Re Marriage of Muhammad (2005)
“" RCW 26.09.080. Such factors include "[t]he economic circumstances of each spouse at the time the division of property is to become effective" but may not include "marital misconduct.”
In Re the Marriage of Matson (1986)
“However, if, as here, the prenuptial agreement operates to waive the marital partners' statutory right to an equitable distribution, a different analysis will take place.”
Heidi K. Kaplan v. Donald C. Kaplan (2018)
“76306-7-1/7 marriage and exercised its discretion to attain a result in accordance with RCW 26.09.080." Doneen, 197 Wn. App. at 951 .”
In re the Marriage of Muhammad (2005)
“” RCW 26.09.080. Such factors include “[t]he economic circumstances of each spouse at the time the division of *804 property is to become effective” but may not include “marital misconduct.”
In Re the Marriage of Hadley (1977)
“Hadley's award does not invalidate what is a fair and equitable decree. The appellant contends that the trial court erred in accepting the valuations of the Pacific Building and the Denny Building as stated in the 1975 financial statement.”
In re the Marriage of White (2001)
“7 According to RCW 26.09.080, the court need only “make such disposition of the property and the liabilities of the parties, either community or separate, as shall appear just and equitable after considering all relevant factors [.”
In Re Marriage of Zahm (1999)
“RCW 26.09.080 governs the disposition of property in marital dissolution cases.”
In re the Marriage of: Ellen Doneen and James Doneen (2017)
“We take this opportunity to clarify the law: in reaching a just and equitable distribution of property under RCW 26.09.080, trial courts must consider multiple factors, including four statutory factors.”
In re the Marriage of Zahm (1999)
“RCW 26.09.080 governs the disposition of property in marital dissolution cases.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.080(1) — 16 cases
In Re the Marriage of Matson (1986)
“However, if, as here, the prenuptial agreement operates to waive the marital partners' statutory right to an equitable distribution, a different analysis will take place.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.080(2) — 5 cases
Tatham v. Rogers (2012)
Matter of Marriage of Hurd (1993)
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.080(3) — 2 cases
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.080(4) — 32 cases
In Re Marriage of Muhammad (2005)
“" RCW 26.09.080. Such factors include "[t]he economic circumstances of each spouse at the time the division of property is to become effective" but may not include "marital misconduct.”
In re the Marriage of Muhammad (2005)
“” RCW 26.09.080. Such factors include “[t]he economic circumstances of each spouse at the time the division of *804 property is to become effective” but may not include “marital misconduct.”
Heidi K. Kaplan v. Donald C. Kaplan (2018)
“76306-7-1/7 marriage and exercised its discretion to attain a result in accordance with RCW 26.09.080." Doneen, 197 Wn. App. at 951 .”
Tatham v. Rogers (2012)
In re the Marriage of Urbana (2008)
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.080(a) — 1 case
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.080(l) — 1 case
In Re the Marriage of Matson (1986)
“However, if, as here, the prenuptial agreement operates to waive the marital partners' statutory right to an equitable distribution, a different analysis will take place.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.