## Facts

- Shannon Connell and Richard Francisco were unmarried cohabitants in a meretricious relationship.
- Connell moved to Las Vegas in 1983 at Francisco’s invitation; they cohabited there until 1986 while she worked as a dancer and assisted with his businesses.
- In 1985, Francisco’s corporation purchased the Whidbey Inn in Washington.
- Connell moved to Whidbey Island in 1986 to manage the Inn and performed daily operations; Francisco soon joined her, and they cohabited there until separation in 1990.
- Connell received no compensation for Inn work from 1986–1988 and later received $400 per week starting in 1989.
- During the relationship Francisco’s net worth increased substantially, largely from real-estate acquisitions; Connell’s assets at separation were modest.
- The trial court limited equitable distribution to property it considered community-like and awarded Connell a share of the increase in value of Francisco’s pension plan.
- The Court of Appeals expanded the distributable pool to include property owned before the relationship and applied a broader presumption of joint ownership.
- The Washington Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. What property is subject to “just and equitable” distribution upon termination of a meretricious relationship.
2. Whether property owned by either party before the meretricious relationship is subject to division.
3. How to characterize property acquired during cohabitation, including whether a presumption of joint (community-like) ownership applies and who bears the burden to rebut it.

## Decision

- The court held that only property acquired during the meretricious relationship that would have been community property if the parties were married is subject to just and equitable distribution.
- The court held that property owned before the relationship, and property that would have been separate property in marriage, is not before the court for distribution, though equitable claims may exist for relationship-based contributions that enhanced value.
- The court adopted a presumption that property acquired during the meretricious relationship is jointly owned in a community-like manner, regardless of title.
- The presumption may be rebutted by proof that an asset was acquired with what would be separate funds; the party asserting separate character bears the burden of rebuttal.
- The court rejected the Court of Appeals’ inclusion of pre-relationship property in the distributable pool and remanded for application of the clarified framework.

## Legal Principles

- A meretricious relationship is not a legal marriage, but community property concepts may guide equitable distribution at relationship termination.
- The trial court must: (1) determine whether a meretricious relationship existed; (2) identify property acquired during the relationship that would be community property if married; and (3) distribute that property in a just and equitable manner.
- Property acquired during a meretricious relationship is presumed jointly owned, analogous to community property, and title alone is not controlling.
- Property owned before the relationship retains separate character and is generally excluded from distribution, subject to equitable adjustment for relationship contributions that increased its value.
- The separate-property rebuttal to the community-like presumption requires tracing to separate funds; the proponent of separate character bears the burden.

## Conclusion

The court established a community-property-analog framework for meretricious relationships: only community-like property acquired during cohabitation is equitably divisible under a just-and-equitable standard, while pre-relationship separate property remains separate absent a compensable increase attributable to the parties’ relationship-based contributions.


Connell v. Francisco, 127 Wn.2d 339, 898 P.2d 831 (Wash. 1995)