## Facts

- Two consolidated disputes sought equitable division of property based on alleged “meretricious relationships.”
- Pennington matter:
  - Clark Pennington and Evelyn Van Pevenage began dating in 1983 while both were married; Pennington remained legally married until 1990.
  - They lived together intermittently between 1985 and 1995, with periods of separation and dating other people.
  - Pennington generally paid for residences and vehicles; Van Pevenage made sporadic contributions (mainly groceries and some furnishings).
  - After final separation, Van Pevenage petitioned for dissolution of a meretricious relationship and equitable property division.
  - Trial court granted equitable relief; the Court of Appeals reversed.
- Chesterfield matter:
  - James Nash and Diana Chesterfield began dating in 1986 while Chesterfield was married but separated; she divorced in 1987.
  - Nash dated other women during the early years; he moved into Chesterfield’s home in 1989.
  - They opened a joint checking account for living expenses but maintained separate finances and made no major joint property purchases.
  - They stopped living together and closed the joint account in 1993; a brief reconciliation in 1994 did not include renewed cohabitation; permanent separation occurred in 1995.
  - Trial court found a meretricious relationship and divided property; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether each pair’s relationship satisfied Washington’s requirements for a meretricious relationship permitting equitable division of property acquired during the relationship.
2. If not, whether either party established entitlement to relief under other equitable theories such as constructive trust or unjust enrichment.

## Decision

- The court held neither relationship qualified as a meretricious relationship.
- The court held neither party proved entitlement to alternative equitable relief.
- Pennington matter: Court of Appeals affirmed; remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion.
- Chesterfield matter: Court of Appeals reversed; remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion.

## Legal Principles

- A meretricious relationship is a stable, marital-like relationship in which both parties cohabit with knowledge that no lawful marriage exists.
- Whether a relationship is meretricious is determined by a fact-specific, multi-factor inquiry considering:
  - continuity of cohabitation,
  - duration,
  - purpose of the relationship,
  - pooling of resources and services for joint projects, and
  - intent of the parties.
- No single factor controls; the relationship must be sufficiently stable and cohabiting, with marriage-like integration, to justify equitable division of property.
- Alternative equitable remedies (e.g., constructive trust, unjust enrichment) require a concrete showing of specific contributions or unjust retention of benefits tied to identifiable property, not merely proof of a nonmarital relationship.

## Conclusion

The Washington Supreme Court denied quasi-dissolution property remedies where the parties’ relationships lacked stable, continuous cohabitation and meaningful financial integration, and it also rejected alternative equitable claims absent specific proof of unjust enrichment or comparable inequity.


In re Marriage of Pennington, 142 Wash. 2d 592, 14 P.3d 764 (Wash. 2000)