Wash. Rev. Code » Title 26 · Chapter 26.16
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 26.16.150 (2026)

Rights of married persons or domestic partners in general

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Every married person or domestic partner shall hereafter have the same right and liberty to acquire, hold, enjoy and dispose of every species of property, and to sue and be sued, as if he or she were unmarried or were not in a state registered domestic partnership.
[ 2008 c 6 s 614; Code 1881 s 2396; RRS s 6900.]

Notes:

Part headings not law—Severability—2008 c 6: See RCW 26.60.900 and 26.60.901.
Separate property
of spouse: RCW 26.16.010.
of domestic partner: RCW 26.16.020.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1961–2001 · leading case: Freehe v. Freehe, 500 P.2d 771 (Wash. 1972).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Freehe v. Freehe, 500 P.2d 771 (Wash. 1972). · cites it 2× “Another important statutory section is RCW 26.16.150. In Goode v. Martinis, supra, we assumed, for purposes of argument, that section .”
Wyman v. Wallace, 588 P.2d 1133 (Wash. 1979). · cites it 2× “This court has long recognized that a woman has a cause of action for alienation of the affections of her husband.”
Plankel v. Plankel, 841 P.2d 1309 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “" RCW 26.16.150. Freeke construed this statute to allow interspousal tort actions, saying that "the statute means what it says.”
State v. Coria, 17 P.3d 1278 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “" RCW 26.16.150. The Washington Supreme Court abandoned the concept of the "supposed unity of husband and wife" when it discarded the concept of interspousal immunity, which precluded one spouse from suing the other for a tort committed during coverture.”
State v. Coria, 105 Wash. App. 51 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “” RCW 26.16.150. The Washington Supreme Court abandoned the concept of the “supposed unity of husband and wife” when it discarded the concept of interspousal immunity, which precluded one spouse from suing the other for a tort committed during coverture.”
Mut. of Enumclaw Ins. v. Wiscomb, 611 P.2d 1304 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980). “*844 In addition to dismissing the traditional reasons upon which the common-law doctrine was based, Freehe found the rule contrary to public policy as expressed in RCW 26.16.150, which provides that "[e]very married person shall hereafter have the same right and liberty to…”
Goode v. Martinis, 361 P.2d 941 (Wash. 1961). “” RCW 26.16.150 provides that: “Every married person shall hereafter have the same right and liberty to acquire, hold, enjoy and dispose of every species of property, and to sue and be sued, as if he or she were unmarried.”
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.