Living Together

(Cohabitation, Meretricious Relationships, Quasi-marital, Quasi-Spousal, etc.)

Division III Court Applies 
Meretricious Relationship Doctrine 
to Same-Sex Couples
February 3, 2004

The Division III Washington Court of Appeals (E. Washington), in a split decision, affirmed a trial court ruling that equitably divided property in a same-sex relationship according to the meretricious relationship doctrine.    

Lynn Gormley v. Julia Robertson
"We hold that the meretricious relationship doctrine should be extended to same-sex couples"...

Lynn Gormley v. Julia Robertson  (Concurrence)
"I disagree with the meretricious relationship rationale as the basis for the majority's decision. This case is best viewed as a property dispute filed as a civil suit, which it was, and decided in equity, not a domestic relations case. ..."

---

In the News

Higher Rate of Cohabitation Makes It Almost the Norm 

U. Chicago study: Cohabiting couples less committed, more prevalent

Study Finds Families Bypassing Marriage

---

"Living Together"

Washington Family Law Reporter

February 2000

Meretricious relationship litigation has become a hot topic of the new millennium.  On February 15, 2000, the Supreme Court heard arguments to determine whether the evidence was sufficient to establish a meretricious relationship in Pennington v. Pennington, 93 Wn. App. 913 (1999) and Chesterfield v. Nash, 96 Wn. App. 103 (1999).  

Arguments can be heard at:

http://www.tvw.org/media/archives.cfm?CFID=135659&CFTOKEN=66702928

This link will take you to the Tape Archive List.  Click on Supreme Court 2000 and scroll list of arguments for Pennington, February 15, 2000

Attorneys Edward Wiggins, Catherine Wright Smith, Ed Lane and Mary Gaudio advocated their various views on what was often referred to as “quasi-spousal or quasi-marital” relationships.  Morality wasn’t an issue, but equity was, throughout the session as the justices and attorneys wrestled with the Connell factors and the dilemma of whether the courts or the legislature are best equipped to deal with these matters.  Actual cohabitation appeared to be an agreed prerequisite for a meretricious relationship, although exclusivity was debated, especially in the case of Mr. Pennington who was married a good portion of the time.  Look for guidance from the Supreme Court on the role of the courts vs. the legislature, the burden of proof, whether a separate business or practice can generate “community” goodwill subject to division in a meretricious case, the satisfactory period to qualify as a cohabitating relationship, and comments upon alternate equitable theories such as unjust enrichment and reimbursement claims for employment related services provided a party to the other’s separate business.   While on the subject of meretricious relationships, on February 11, 2000, the Division Two Court decided in Vasquez v. Hawthorne, __ Wn. App. ___, that homosexual partnerships can not qualify for meretricious treatment.   

MERETRICIOUS RELATIONSHIP:  Homosexual Partners Need Not Apply Vasquez v. Hawthorne, ___ Wn. App. ___ (2.11.00)  At issue was whether a “life-partner homosexual relationship” can qualify as meretricious for the purpose of dividing property.  A Pierce County trial judge said yes, but Judge Bridgewater of the Division Two Court reversed, holding that a same-sex relationship cannot be a meretricious relationship because such persons do not have a “quasi-marital” relationship.  Same-sex persons, wrote Judge Bridgewater, may not legally marry and such a relationship is not entitled to the rights and protections of a quasi-marriage, such as community property-like treatment.  “We deduce from Connell and its predecessors that a ‘meretricious relationship’ is one where the parties may legally marry.  And it is clear that these courts implicitly assumed that a meretricious relationship can only exist between a man and a woman. In Washington, there are statutory limitations on who may marry.  We hold that these limitations are relevant in determining whether a relationship is sufficiently ‘marital-like’ to be meretricious.  To marry, parties must be over the age of 18 and mentally competent.  See RCW 26.04.010(1).  Further, neither party may be married to another person, the parties must be of the opposite sex, and the parties must not be nearer of kin than second cousins.  See RCW 26.04.020 (emphasis added). … We hold that a same-sex relationship cannot be a meretricious relationship because such persons do not have a ‘quasi-marital’ relationship.  Same-sex persons may not legally marry and such a relationship is not entitled to the rights and protections of a quasi-marriage, such as community property-like treatment.”

Interestingly, two new studies have just been published on cohabitation.  According to a February 14, 2000 copyrighted article by Sydney Schwartz of the Chicago Maroon, one study by University of Chicago Sociology Professor Linda Waite, which is the synthesis of ten years work, concludes that non-married, cohabiting couples lack the type of commitments (“in sickness and health; ‘til death do we part”), specialization (“you cook, I sweep”), shared financial resources (one for all, all for one), connection with a mate’s family and monogamous sexual relationships found in long-term marriages.  Waite observes cohabitation in the United States to be continually short-term and sees it as remaining temporary and as leading to a lack of committed marriages in the United States.   According to Waite, fear of domestic violence in marriages is what keeps many unmarried mothers in cohabitating relationships, yet  “when it comes to ‘hitting, shoving, and throwing things,’ cohabiting couples are more than three times more likely than the married couples to say things that get far out of hand... people who live together are 1.8 times more likely to report violent arguments than married people.”  The study also sheds a negative light on the success of cohabitation as a precursor to marriage.  According to Waite, divorce is much more likely to occur for people who cohabitated than those who didn’t.  The full text of the study will be published by Roman and Littlefield in Waite’s new book, Strengthening American Marriages: A Communitarian Perspective.  An abridged version was printed in the winter issue of the journal “The Responsive Community”.

Another study by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) agrees on the short-term nature of cohabitation.  According to the NORC study, the average rate for cohabitation is a little over a year. 

Putting this all in perspective, statistics show that almost two-thirds of Americans choose to cohabit before getting married.  Also, recent Census Bureau figures show that four million heterosexual couples are currently living in cohabitational relationships -- the figure is eight times that of 1970.