Common Law Marriage in Washington: What You Need to Know

Many couples in Washington live together for years without formally marrying, sometimes assuming their relationship carries the same legal weight as a marriage. This assumption can create significant challenges, particularly regarding property and finances if the relationship dissolves. Understanding how Washington state law addresses long-term, unmarried partnerships is crucial for anyone in such a relationship.

Recognition in Washington

Washington state does not permit the formation of “common law marriages” within its borders. Unlike states where couples can be legally married simply by living together and presenting themselves as spouses, Washington requires specific legal steps for a marriage to be valid. State law mandates that individuals obtain a marriage license and participate in a formal ceremony officiated by an authorized person in the presence of witnesses. Cohabitation alone, regardless of duration or shared circumstances like children or last names, does not create a legal marriage in Washington.

However, Washington generally recognizes common law marriages that were validly established in other states or jurisdictions that allow them. If a couple legally entered into a common law marriage in a state like Colorado or Texas and then moved to Washington, Washington courts typically acknowledge their marital status. This distinction highlights that while Washington prohibits the creation of common law marriages locally, it respects those legally formed elsewhere, a principle affirmed in state case law such as In re Marriage of Pennington.¹Washington Courts. In re Marriage of Pennington

Committed Intimate Relationships

Although Washington does not recognize common law marriage formed within the state, its courts have established the legal concept of a “Committed Intimate Relationship” (CIR). This doctrine, formerly known as a “meretricious relationship” until updated by the state Supreme Court in Olver v. Fowler (2007), allows courts to address the financial and property aspects of long-term, stable, marriage-like relationships upon their dissolution.²Washington Courts. Olver v. Fowler A CIR is not automatic and must be determined by a court based on the specific circumstances of the relationship.

Elements for Legal Recognition

Before considering a CIR, a court confirms that the partners meet basic marriage eligibility: they must be of legal age, mentally competent, and not married or in a registered domestic partnership with others. If these conditions are met, the court evaluates the relationship using several factors developed through case law, notably Connell v. Francisco (1995) and In re Marriage of Lindsey (1984).³Washington Courts. Connell v. Francisco These factors include continuous cohabitation, the relationship’s duration and purpose, the pooling of resources and services for joint projects, and the partners’ intent. No single factor is decisive; the court assesses the relationship holistically to determine if it functioned like a marriage, even though the partners were unmarried.

Financial Interdependence

A key factor in identifying a Committed Intimate Relationship is the extent of financial interdependence between the partners. Courts examine whether the couple combined their finances and efforts in ways similar to a married couple. Evidence might include joint bank accounts or credit cards, shared investments, co-ownership of property, naming each other as beneficiaries on insurance or retirement plans, and contributing jointly to household expenses. The focus is on whether their financial practices demonstrated a shared economic life and mutual investment in a common future, as outlined in the Connell case.

Duration of Relationship

The length of time a couple lived together is also considered when evaluating a potential CIR. Washington law sets no specific minimum duration, but a longer period of continuous cohabitation generally supports the finding of a stable, marriage-like relationship. While relationships lasting several years are often involved in CIR cases, duration is assessed alongside other factors like the continuity of living together, the relationship’s intended purpose, and the partners’ overall commitment. The court looks at the relationship’s overall character and stability, not just its length.

Property Rights

When a Committed Intimate Relationship ends, Washington courts address the division of property acquired during the relationship using principles similar to divorce law, though not identical. Based on precedents like In re Marriage of Lindsey and Connell v. Francisco, property acquired through the efforts of either partner during the CIR is generally presumed to be jointly owned, akin to community property in a marriage.⁴WashingtonLawHelp.org. Washington Property Law for Unmarried Couples

This “community-like” property is distinct from separate property, which includes assets owned by either partner before the relationship or received individually as gifts or inheritance during it. Separate property typically remains with the original owner and is not subject to division, unless joint funds or efforts significantly increased its value.

For the community-like property acquired during the CIR, courts apply a “just and equitable” standard for division, similar to the standard used in divorces under state law (RCW 26.09.080). This requires fairness based on the specific circumstances, not necessarily an equal 50/50 split. The court considers the nature and extent of the property, the relationship’s duration, and each partner’s economic situation post-separation. Both financial and non-financial contributions, such as homemaking or career support, can be weighed when dividing assets like bank accounts, vehicles, or retirement benefits accrued during the relationship, regardless of whose name is on the title.

Support Obligations

A significant difference between ending a Committed Intimate Relationship and a legal marriage in Washington concerns ongoing financial support. Washington courts lack the authority to order spousal maintenance (alimony) following the dissolution of a CIR. The laws that permit maintenance awards in divorce cases, considering factors like need, duration, and ability to pay (RCW 26.09.090), do not apply to unmarried partners.

The Washington Supreme Court clarified this limitation in Connell v. Francisco.⁵Washington Courts. Connell v. Francisco While the court established rules for equitably dividing property acquired during a CIR to prevent unjust enrichment, it determined that the legal obligation of post-relationship support does not extend beyond formal marriage. The CIR doctrine was developed primarily to address property division based on fairness and the partners’ joint efforts, not to grant all the rights and responsibilities associated with legal marriage. Consequently, former partners in a CIR cannot seek court-ordered maintenance from each other based on the relationship itself.

Cohabitation Agreements

To avoid potential disputes and the uncertainties of court determinations under the CIR doctrine, unmarried couples in Washington can create a cohabitation agreement. This is a contract outlining how assets, debts, and financial responsibilities will be handled during the relationship and in the event of separation. By defining these terms proactively, couples can establish clarity and potentially bypass future litigation over property division.

These agreements are subject to general contract law principles in Washington. While no specific statute governs them exclusively, their enforceability often depends on meeting standards similar to those for prenuptial agreements, emphasizing fairness. Courts typically look for procedural fairness (full financial disclosure, voluntariness, absence of coercion, opportunity for independent legal advice) and substantive fairness (reasonable terms), drawing on standards from cases like In re Marriage of Matson.⁶King County Bar Association. Prenuptial Agreements in Washington

A valid cohabitation agreement should generally be in writing and signed by both parties after full disclosure of finances. It can specify the ownership of property brought into the relationship, how property acquired during cohabitation will be treated upon separation, responsibility for debts, and arrangements for household expenses. While partners can agree on terms for financial support between themselves upon separation, this contractual support differs from court-ordered spousal maintenance, which remains unavailable for CIR dissolutions. Importantly, cohabitation agreements cannot legally determine child custody or child support; courts always decide these matters based on the child’s best interests according to state law (RCW Title 26). A well-drafted agreement allows partners to structure their financial lives according to their own wishes, offering predictability should the relationship end.

• 1
  Washington Courts. In re Marriage of Pennington
• 2
  Washington Courts. Olver v. Fowler
• 3
  Washington Courts. Connell v. Francisco
• 4
  WashingtonLawHelp.org. Washington Property Law for Unmarried Couples
• 5
  Washington Courts. Connell v. Francisco
• 6
  King County Bar Association. Prenuptial Agreements in Washington