By Beth A. McDaniel
Do you have — or does someone close to you have – a significant other? If so, are you familiar with the term ‘committed intimate relationship?’
Based upon my informal polling, I am guessing the answer to the last question is “no.” Committed intimate relationships (“CIRs”) appear to be a booming area of law in our state. I continue to be surprised when yet another colleague tells me of a lawyer in their firm who has CIRs as a main part of their law practice. Clearly it is something that should be given attention.
In accordance with a 1984 Washington court case, In re Marriage of Lindsey, a CIR is a stable, marital-like relationship where both parties cohabitate with the common knowledge that a marriage between them does not exist. In determining whether a CIR exists, the court considers the following nonexclusive relevant factors:
1. Continuous cohabitation
2. Duration of the relationship
3. Purpose of the relationship and whether it is inclusive
4. Pooling of resources and services for joint projects
5. The intent of the parties
Pursuant to a 1995 Washington court case, Connell v. Francisco, for a court determine whether a CIR exists, a three-pronged analysis if followed: 1) the court must look at the relevant factors and determine whether a CIR exists; 2) if a CIR exists, then the court must evaluate the interest of each party in the property acquired during the relationship; and 3) based on such information, the court must make a just and equitable distribution of property.
The purpose of Lindsey Connell, and similar cases is to protect individuals who may be left at a financial disadvantage upon the termination of such a relationship due to death of one of the partners. Such surviving partners may feel helpless watching their deceased partner’s family members ‘swoop in’ to claim assets.
On the other side, the advent of CIRs may have unintended results. For example, during a relationship there may have been a mutual understanding that everything is separate and that assets will go to the deceased partner’s children upon the partners’ respective deaths. Note that it may not make a difference if the deceased partner remembered their partner in their Will or named them as an asset beneficiary.
When a partner of a CIR dies, the surviving partner may submit a petition to the court requesting the estate assets should be distributed based upon the existence of a CIR, leaving them open to objections filed by surviving family member of their deceased partner.
In amicable instances, a mutual agreement may be reached by thesurviving partner and the deceased partner’s family members as to how the assets will be distributed.
A written agreement clearly stating the intentions of each partner can avoid the filing of such a petition or the need to execute a post-death agreement. An agreement should be considered even among platonic, long-term roommates, especially if the roommates previously had a romantic relationship
For more information, or to schedule an appointment, please call 425-251-8880 or email info@bethmcdaniel.com
First Published: July 2023