## Facts

- Alan Boober and Marilyn Boober were married and had one child, Joshua Boober.
- Alan and Marilyn divorced in 1981.
- In 1983, Alan married Debbie Boober.
- Alan and Debbie’s marriage was tumultuous, and each reportedly had extramarital relationships.
- In late 1985, Alan moved to California for work; he returned to Washington in April 1986.
- Debbie later gave birth to a child whose father was not Alan.
- Alan and Debbie did not file for dissolution or legal separation.
- Debbie claimed that despite their problems, she and Alan continued parts of a marital relationship, including emotional and other support, appearing socially as a couple, and sexual relations.
- In August 1987, Alan began a new job and obtained group term life insurance through his employer from Aetna Life Insurance Company.
- Alan named Joshua as the sole beneficiary on the policy.
- Alan died in December 1987.
- Marilyn, as guardian ad litem for Joshua, and Debbie submitted competing claims to the policy proceeds.
- Marilyn argued Alan and Debbie were effectively separated before 1987, making the policy Alan’s separate property and payable entirely to Joshua.
- Debbie claimed the policy was acquired during an ongoing marriage and was community property, giving her a community share of the proceeds.
- Aetna filed an interpleader action to resolve the competing claims.
- On cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court awarded all proceeds to Joshua, concluding Alan and Debbie were living “separate and apart” when the policy was acquired.
- Debbie appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the record established as a matter of law that Alan and Debbie were living “separate and apart” when Alan obtained the employer-provided life insurance, so that the policy and proceeds were Alan’s separate property.
2. Whether disputed facts about the spouses’ relationship and intent required denial of summary judgment and a fact-finding determination on whether the marital community had ended.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment awarding all proceeds to Joshua.
- The court held that genuine issues of material fact existed on whether Alan and Debbie were living “separate and apart” in a way that terminated the marital community.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine the policy’s character (community or separate) and the resulting rights to the proceeds.

## Legal Principles

- In Washington, property acquired during marriage is presumed community property unless a party proves it is separate.
- A marital community may end before dissolution if spouses are “living separate and apart,” meaning there is a complete break in the marital relationship with no present intent to resume it.
- Physical separation, marital discord, or infidelity alone does not automatically establish that spouses are living “separate and apart” for community-property purposes.
- Whether spouses are “separate and apart” commonly turns on intent and the total circumstances, making it a fact question when evidence conflicts.
- Summary judgment is improper when resolving the dispute requires choosing among competing accounts or drawing contested inferences about intent.
- If a life insurance policy is community property, a surviving spouse may have a community interest in the proceeds even if someone else is the named beneficiary; if the policy is separate property, the named beneficiary generally takes the proceeds.

## Conclusion

Because the record contained conflicting evidence about whether Alan and Debbie had ended their marital community before Alan obtained the Aetna group term life insurance, the Court of Appeals held that the “separate and apart” question could not be decided on summary judgment and sent the case back for a factual determination of the policy’s community or separate character and the proper distribution of proceeds.


Aetna Life Insurance Company v. Boober, 784 P.2d 186 (1990)