## Facts

- Andrew Clayton’s family rented a house owned by Douglas and Mary Kay Wilson during Clayton’s childhood.
- The Wilsons, as a marital community, hired Clayton to do yard work on community-owned properties.
- Over several years, Douglas sexually abused Clayton repeatedly, using the work arrangement as the setting and structure for the abuse.
- Douglas paid Clayton with community funds and withheld payment until after each abusive episode.
- Clayton reported the abuse to police; Douglas was arrested in December 2002.
- Shortly after the arrest, Douglas and Mary Kay consulted counsel about dissolving the marriage and executed an agreement transferring more than 90% of community assets to Mary Kay.
- Clayton sued Douglas and Mary Kay in tort; after a bench trial, the trial court held the marital community liable, entered judgment for Clayton, and voided the post-arrest property transfer as fraudulent.

## Issues

1. Whether a marital community may be held liable for one spouse’s intentional sexual abuse of a minor when the abuse is closely connected to the victim’s work for the community and paid for with community assets.
2. Whether a post-arrest marital property division transferring most community assets to the non-tortfeasor spouse may defeat a tort creditor’s recovery, or is voidable as a fraudulent transfer.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the trial court and Court of Appeals.
- The marital community was liable for Douglas’s torts because the abuse was sufficiently connected to community business: Clayton was hired to work on community property and was paid with community funds in a manner tied to the abuse.
- The post-arrest property agreement allocating over 90% of community assets to Mary Kay was properly set aside as a fraudulent transfer intended to hinder or delay collection on anticipated tort liability.
- Enforcement of Clayton’s judgment was permitted against former community property notwithstanding the later property division.
- The decision did not rest on a finding that Mary Kay participated in, knew of, or ratified the abuse; her exposure was through community-property liability rather than personal fault.

## Legal Principles

- A marital community may be liable for a spouse’s torts, including intentional torts, when the conduct bears a sufficient nexus to the management or purposes of community business or is facilitated through community assets and relationships.
- Use of community property, community business arrangements, and community funds to enable or carry out wrongful conduct can supply the required connection for community liability.
- A transfer or division of property made with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors is voidable, and courts may set it aside to protect a creditor’s ability to reach assets that otherwise would have been available.
- A non-tortfeasor spouse’s exposure may be limited to former community property where liability is imposed on the marital community rather than on the spouse personally.

## Conclusion

The court held that the marital community was liable because Douglas used a community employment/tenant relationship and community funds to facilitate his abuse, and it prevented avoidance of the judgment by voiding a post-arrest asset transfer designed to shield community property from Clayton’s tort claim.


Clayton v. Wilson, 227 P.3d 278 (Wash. 2010)