Oh, our wonderful legal line program through out firm that we have in place, brings forth
questions that in many cases, we would never expect to receive. One question
came in a while back regarding parties who want to co-own some real estate.
Such questions are the bread and butter of our real estate law practice.
But, as we suggested that the folks come in and talk with us, we quickly
determined that this was not just an ordinary “co-ownership” or “co-tenancy” or
LLC or Real Estate or anything like that. THESE PEOPLE WERE LIVING TOGETHER!!!
Game changer? ABSOLUTELY. A real strong yes. You see, this raises
several issues that our real estate partners are seeing daily. Thank goodness
you do not have to legally advise folks who are choosing to own property
together about their legal rights that you would want to know the state of the
law in Washington State on what we used to call: “Meretricious Relationships”,
but the term of art today in Washington State is….
COMMITTED INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS
We review in this industry update a recent case that came down in 2017
from the Court of Appeals (Division 1) up in Seattle. This is the case that I
used with the recent folks that were referred by one of you as I found that
case on point AND it really gives our readers a primer on how the courts in
Washington treat unmarried co-owners of property. You may be surprised. Read
on……
MORGAN v. BRINEY (Division 1, 2017)
*****The Morgan/Brinley relationship started in 1987 resulting in them
living together since 1990.
*****In 1992, they separated but continued to “date”.
*****They moved back living together and purchased a home in 1995 that
only one name, Mr. Briney, was on title. The male party Briney was also the
only one liable on the loan and it was only Mr. Briney that made the down
payment out of his own funds.
*****Tensions arose about remodeling their new home and Morgan moved out
for 8 months.
*****She (Morgan) moved back in and they collaborated about the
remodeling, but Briney paid for all the remodeling work and most of the living
expenses as well.
*****In 2013, Morgan moved out and initiated an action to divide the
property.
WHAT IS A COMMITTED INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP ACCORDING TO THIS COURT OF
APPEALS?
The court said that a committed intimate relationship exists when there
is a stable, marital-like relationship where both parties co-habit together
with knowledge that a lawful marriage between them does not exist.
If such relationship DOES exist as determined by the court, it evaluates
the interest that each party has in the property acquired during the period of
the relationship, and then makes a just and equitable distribution of such
property.
The court found, that by the time that they purchased the house
together, they met the above test.
It did not matter much to the Court that Mr. Briney deposited the down
payment. It didn’t matter that Mr. Briney was the only one on the mortgage
loan. It didn’t matter to this Court that Ms. Morgan’s name was NOT even on
title!!! She was not obligated in any manner for any obligation for the home.
Morgan paid for nothing.
The courts’ analysis:
A. They had been living
together months before the house purchase.
B. They looked for the house
together.
C. They agreed together to buy
a house that needed work.
D. They moved into the house
together.
This case, I believe, illustrates for all of us in the trade that as we
progress in the future many more of our customers and clients will be entering
these kinds of relationships, attempting to avoid some of the traps of
marriage. There are traps for the unwary as there are traps for parties
that enter marriage relationships.
Parties entering into such committed relationships need to know that
this case really illustrates the uncertainty that exists in the division of
property arising out of committed intimate relationships, and the value that
can arise from parties entering into a written agreement relating to the
characterization of property co-owned notwithstanding the fact that they are
not married. The parties in this case did NOT have any written agreement at
all.
PRACTICE POINTER: Always encourage your
clients, who are purchasing property together, to talk with a competent real
estate attorney and draft an agreement between them that will OVERCOME the
uncertainties that Morgan and Briney experienced when the courts determined how
their property was going to be divided. These co-ownership agreements are not
expensive and can be of real value when parties may need to separate sometime
in the future.
You have the option to read this opinion below:
2017 WL4369547 (Div. 1, 2017).
No comments:
Post a Comment