## Facts

- Marcy Johnson and Lance Johnson married in 1969 and had one child.
- During the marriage, they accumulated significant real estate interests, including rental properties they managed together; Lance worked as an architect and Marcy operated a weaving business.
- In 1985, Marcy and the child moved out of the marital home; the spouses never again lived in the same household and did not resume romantic or sexual relations.
- After 1985, Lance frequently visited, ate meals with Marcy and the child, and joined in some holidays and travel; these activities were tied to parenting rather than a renewed marital relationship.
- The parties continued certain financial ties after 1985, including co-managing rental properties and filing joint tax returns.
- In 1986, Lance signed documents transferring his interest in Marcy’s weaving business to her; the documents stated the parties were “separated and contemplating divorce.”
- Marcy filed for dissolution in 1996.
- In his response, Lance admitted a 1985 separation, but at trial he argued separation did not occur until 1996.

## Issues

1. Whether the marital community ended in 1985, such that property acquired and earnings after that date were separate rather than community property.
2. Whether the trial court’s selection of a 1996 separation date lacked substantial evidence and caused an erroneous property characterization requiring reversal of the property division.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.
- The court held the evidence required an earlier separation date (1985), and the trial court erred in finding separation occurred in 1996.
- The court concluded the property division premised on the 1996 separation date was an abuse of discretion and required reconsideration using the correct separation date.

## Legal Principles

- In a dissolution, property and earnings acquired after separation are generally treated as separate property rather than community property.
- Separation for property-characterization purposes turns on a complete and final break in the marital relationship, shown by living separately and intent to end the marital community as reflected in the parties’ conduct.
- Cooperative parenting and continued financial dealings may coexist with separation and do not, by themselves, establish continuation of the marital community.
- Written acknowledgments and party admissions are probative evidence of separation and may contradict findings that no evidence of separation exists.
- A property division is an abuse of discretion if it rests on materially incorrect characterization of assets and earnings caused by an erroneous separation date.

## Conclusion

The appellate court required the dissolution court to treat 1985 as the separation date and to recharacterize and redistribute assets and income accordingly, because the record showed the marital relationship had ended by 1985 despite ongoing co-parenting and some continued financial entanglements.


In re Marriage of Johnson, 93 Wash. App. 1043 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998)