## Facts

- Frieda Fenn and John Lockwood began cohabiting in 1986 with the intent to start a family.
- In 1987, they held a commitment ceremony, and both understood it was not a legal marriage.
- In 1988, the parties’ daughter, Freya Fennwood, was born, and the parties raised her together during their cohabitation.
- During the early years of the relationship, Lockwood started Pygmy Boats, a kayak company he described as a family business.
- Lockwood operated Pygmy Boats while Fenn primarily performed homemaking and child-rearing work.
- In 1997, the parties acquired real property in Port Townsend, Washington, and signed a written agreement dividing ownership 41.5% to Fenn and 58.5% to Lockwood.
- In 2002, the parties permanently separated.
- Fenn filed an action seeking an equitable distribution of property acquired during the relationship.
- The trial court found the parties were in a meretricious relationship and divided the property acquired during the relationship 45% to Fenn and 55% to Lockwood.
- The trial court included the Port Townsend property in the property pool subject to equitable division and justified the unequal split based on factors including the parties’ age difference, Lockwood’s anticipated retirement, and Lockwood’s role in creating Pygmy Boats.
- Lockwood appealed, challenging (1) the meretricious-relationship finding and (2) inclusion of the Port Townsend property in the property pool.
- Fenn cross-appealed, challenging the trial court’s 45/55 allocation.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the trial court’s finding that Fenn and Lockwood were in a meretricious relationship.
2. Whether the trial court erred by treating the Port Townsend property—acquired during the relationship but governed by a written ownership agreement—as property subject to equitable division as part of the meretricious-relationship property pool.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding Fenn 45% and Lockwood 55% of the property subject to division.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s determination that Fenn and Lockwood were in a meretricious relationship.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision to equitably divide property acquired during the meretricious relationship and rejected Fenn’s challenge to the overall 45/55 allocation.
- The Court of Appeals reversed in part the trial court’s treatment of the Port Townsend property and remanded for redistribution consistent with the parties’ written ownership agreement and the appellate court’s analysis.

## Legal Principles

- A meretricious relationship is a stable, marital-like relationship in which the parties cohabit with knowledge that no lawful marriage exists.
- In deciding whether a meretricious relationship exists, courts consider factors including: continuous cohabitation, duration, purpose of the relationship, pooling of resources and services for joint projects, and the parties’ intent.
- After finding a meretricious relationship, the court identifies property acquired during the relationship that would be community property if the parties were married and then makes an equitable distribution.
- Equitable distribution is not required to be equal; the trial court has discretion to divide property based on fairness in light of the parties’ circumstances.
- A trial court must properly characterize and distribute property interests; when the parties have a written agreement defining ownership interests in a specific asset, the court must account for that agreement when deciding how to treat and distribute that asset.

## Conclusion

Fenn v. Lockwood held that substantial evidence supported the trial court’s finding of a meretricious relationship and that the trial court acted within its discretion in making an unequal overall distribution of property acquired during the relationship, but the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s treatment of the Port Townsend real property and remanded for redistribution that properly accounts for the parties’ written ownership agreement.


Fenn v. Lockwood, 136 Wash. App. 1017 (2006)