Wash. Rev. Code » Title 26 · Chapter 26.16

Wash. Rev. Code § 26.16.140

Earnings and accumulations of spouses or domestic partners living apart, minor children

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
When spouses or domestic partners are living separate and apart, their respective earnings and accumulations shall be the separate property of each. The earnings and accumulations of minor children shall be the separate property of the spouse or domestic partner who has their custody or, if no custody award has been made, then the separate property of the spouse or domestic partner with whom said children are living.
[ 2008 c 6 s 613; 1972 ex.s. c 108 s 5; Code 1881 s 2413; RRS s 6896.]

Notes:

Part headings not law—Severability—2008 c 6: See RCW 26.60.900 and 26.60.901.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 65 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1957–2025 · leading case: Seizer v. Sessions
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Seizer v. Sessions (1997) wash · cites it 10× “Following a request by the trial court for briefing on RCW 26.16.140, the court held Washington law governs the action, the marital community of Rosalie and Elmer Sessions is defunct under RCW 26.”
Seizer v. Sessions (1997) wash · cites it 10× “Following a request by the trial court for briefing on RCW 26.16.140, the court held Washington law governs the action, the marital community of Rosalie and Elmer Sessions is defunct under RCW 26.”
Finch v. Wieder (2012) washctapp · cites it 6× “Finch argues that RCW 26.16.140 should apply to committed intimate relationships and that under this statute the relationship did not end until both parties mutually intended to terminate the relationship.”
In Re the Marriage of Boisen (1997) washctapp · cites it 8× “It based its rejection on RCW 26.16.140, and on two essential propositions of fact.”
In Re the Marriage of Short (1995) wash · cites it 3× “” RCW 26.16.140; Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Bunt, 110 Wn.”
In re the Marriage of Griswold (2002) washctapp · cites it 2× “The court applied the so-called “time rule”: To determine how unvested employee stock options are characterized under RCW 26.”
In Re Marriage of Griswold (2002) washctapp · cites it 2× “The court applied the so-called "time rule": To determine how unvested employee stock options are characterized under RCW 26.16, a trial court must first ascertain whether the stock options were granted to compensate the employee for past, present, or future employment services.”
In re Marriage of Porter (2024) wash · cites it 4× “Under RCW 26.16.140, “[w]hen spouses or domestic partners are living separate and apart, their respective earnings and accumulations shall be the separate property of each.”
In the Matter of Marriage of Nuss (1992) washctapp · cites it 2× “Date of Separation RCW 26.16.140 provides, in pertinent part: "When a husband and wife are living separate and apart, their respective earnings and accumulations shall be the separate property of each.”
Dean v. Lehman (2001) wash “Central to the DOC’s argument is the fact that the DOC is the custodian of the funds and that the funds are “not subject to the management and control of either spouse” nor “available to satisfy general community obligations.”
In re the Marriage of Harrington (1997) washctapp · cites it 2× “RCW 26.16.140; Short, 125 Wn.2d at 871 ; Aetna Life Ins.”
In re the Marriage of White (2001) washctapp “RCW 26.16.140; Seizer v. Sessions, 132 Wn.”
Show all 65 citing cases →
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.