Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 26.16.210 (2026)
Burden of proof in transactions between spouses or domestic partners
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
In every case, where any question arises as to the good faith of any transaction between spouses or between domestic partners, whether a transaction between them directly or by intervention of third person or persons, the burden of proof shall be upon the party asserting the good faith.
[ 2008 c 6 s 619; Code 1881 s 2397; RRS s 5828.]
Notes:
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1958–2024 · leading case: In Re the Marriage of Sievers, 897 P.2d 388 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995).
In Re the Marriage of Sievers, 897 P.2d 388 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). “See RCW 26.16.210 ("In every case, where any question arises as to the good faith of any transaction between husband and wife, whether a transaction between them directly or by intervention of third .”
Clayton v. Wilson, 168 Wash. 2d 57 (Wash. 2010). “8 Moreover RCW 26.16.210 requires spouses to prove good faith in the transfer if a plaintiff questions their motive.”
In Re the Marriage of Matson, 730 P.2d 668 (Wash. 1986). “RCW 26.16.210. To uphold the validity of a prenuptial agreement under Washington law still requires full disclosure by both parties of all aspects of each party's assets, with the agreement entered into fully and voluntarily on independent advice and with full knowledge by each…”
Clayton v. Wilson, 227 P.3d 278 (Wash. 2010). “" RCW 26.16.210. ¶ 25 Based on RCW 19.40.041(b)'s 11 factors, the facts of the present matter strongly suggest fraud in the Wilsons' property transfer: The Wilsons were married, [9] Mr.”
In Re Est. of Haviland, 255 P.3d 854 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “2d 125 (1954))); RCW 26.16.210 (“In every case, where any question arises as to the good faith of any transaction between spouses or between domestic partners, whether a transaction between them directly or by intervention of third person or persons, the burden of proof shall be…”
In Re the Marriage of Cohn, 569 P.2d 79 (Wash. Ct. App. 1977). “2 RCW 26.16.210. Burden of proof in transactions between husband and wife.”
Peste v. Peste, 459 P.2d 70 (Wash. Ct. App. 1969). “RCW 26.16.210. Yeager v. Yeager, 82 Wash.”
Whitney v. Seattle-First Nat'l Bank, 560 P.2d 360 (Wash. Ct. App. 1977). “Whitney was entitled to independent advice and counsel prior to execution of the documents. As to the first contention, the parties mutually agree that the burden of proof in showing the good faith of the transaction falls upon the respondents.”
Jones v. Jones, 353 P.2d 441 (Wash. 1960). “We think appellant sustained the burden of proving the good faith of the transfers to her as imposed by RCW 26.16.210, and for that reason the judgment of the trial court, holding such transfers to be null and void, must be reversed and respondent’s cross-complaint dismissed.”
Clayton v. Wilson, 186 P.3d 348 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “" RCW 26.16.210. The court concluded the Wilsons did not prove the good faith of the conveyances set forth in the property settlement.”
Clayton v. Wilson, 145 Wash. App. 86 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “” RCW 26.16.210. The court concluded the Wilsons did not prove the good faith of the conveyances set forth in the property settlement.”
In Re Bubb's Est., 331 P.2d 859 (Wash. 1958). “RCW 26.16.210, provides: “In every case where any question arises as to the good faith of any transaction between husband and wife, whether a transaction between them directly or by intervention of a third person or persons, the burden of proof shall be upon the party asserting…”
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.