## Facts

- Ronna R. Brown and William L. Brown married in 1967.
- During an earlier dissolution proceeding (later dismissed after reconciliation), the spouses executed a postnuptial agreement identifying certain assets as separate or community and providing equal division of community property upon dissolution.
- In 1979, Ronna filed a second dissolution action; both parties stipulated the postnuptial agreement was valid and binding, and the trial court distributed property under it.
- About six months before the 1979 filing, Ronna was injured in an automobile accident caused by a third party and had a potential personal-injury claim; certain out-of-pocket expenses incurred before trial had already been reimbursed.
- At the dissolution trial, the court did not permit cross-examination about the injury or the value of any potential recovery.
- The trial court classified the potential tort recovery by component:
  - Reimbursement for post-trial out-of-pocket expenses: separate property of the spouse who incurred those expenses.
  - Lost earnings and diminished earning capacity from the accident to separation: community property, divided equally.
  - Lost earnings and diminished earning capacity after separation and non-economic damages (pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, loss of enjoyment of life): Ronna’s separate property.
- The appellate court reversed in part, treating the potential recovery as community property; the state supreme court granted review.

## Issues

1. How should a spouse’s potential recovery on a personal-injury claim for an injury sustained during marriage be characterized for property distribution in dissolution?
2. Specifically, should the recovery be treated as community property in full, or allocated between separate and community components based on what the damages compensate?

## Decision

- The supreme court reversed the appellate court and reinstated the trial court’s characterization and allocation of the potential personal-injury recovery.
- The court held that personal-injury recovery is generally the injured spouse’s separate property, except to the extent it compensates the marital community for lost wages that would have been community property or for injury-related expenses paid or incurred by the community.
- Applying that rule, the court approved classifying:
  - Pre-separation lost earnings as community property; and
  - Post-separation earning impairment and non-economic personal injury damages as the injured spouse’s separate property.

## Legal Principles

- Washington applies an analytic, component-by-component method to classify personal-injury recoveries in dissolution: the character of each part turns on what the payment replaces.
- Damages substituting for community earnings (lost wages during marriage) are community property.
- Damages reimbursing medical or related expenses paid or incurred by the community are community property.
- Damages compensating the injured spouse’s personal bodily harm and non-economic loss (including pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, and loss of enjoyment of life) are separate property.
- Damages replacing post-separation earning capacity are separate property because they compensate loss after the community has ended.

## Conclusion

The court adopted an analytic approach to personal-injury recoveries in dissolution: most personal-injury damages belong to the injured spouse as separate property, while amounts replacing community wages or reimbursing community-paid expenses are community property subject to equitable division.


In re Marriage of Brown, 100 Wash. 2d 729, 675 P.2d 1207 (Wash. 1984)