## Facts

- Hazel Mary Salvini (“Mary”) was married to Pete Salvini (“Pete”).
- In 1950, Jennie Klotsche (about 90 years old) owned real property that had been pastureland, referred to in the case as the “store property.”
- Mary had served as executrix of Jennie’s late husband’s will, and Jennie expressed a desire to give the store property to Pete and Mary.
- On June 17, 1950, a warranty deed was prepared to carry out Jennie’s intended gift, but the deed was never executed.
- Around the same time, Howard Gerritsen and his wife became interested in acquiring or leasing the store property to construct a building and operate a store.
- Gerritsen could obtain a lower construction-mortgage interest rate if the property was in his name.
- On June 26, 1950, the Salvinis and the Gerritsens executed a written agreement providing that:
  - Jennie would convey the store property to the Gerritsens;
  - the Gerritsens would mortgage the property and construct the building; and
  - the Gerritsens would then convey title to Pete and Mary Salvini, as husband and wife, who would lease the property back to the Gerritsens for a term of years.
- The transactions were carried out so that title ultimately was conveyed to Pete and Mary Salvini as husband and wife.
- After the conveyance, the Salvinis treated the store property as community property.
- In 1958, Mary executed a will that did not identify the store property as her separate property.
- Mary later executed a will revoking all prior wills but making no disposition of her property; as to her property, she died intestate.
- Mary was survived by Pete and by her mother, Margaret Scanlon (“Scanlon”).
- In probate, Mary’s estate sought distribution of the store property entirely to Pete on the basis that it was community property under Washington’s descent statute for community property (RCW 11.04.050).
- Scanlon objected, claiming the store property was Mary’s separate property; if so, Scanlon argued distribution should be one-half to Pete and one-half to Scanlon under RCW 11.04.020.
- The trial court found the store property was community property and distributed it to Pete. Scanlon appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the store property, ultimately deeded to Pete and Mary as husband and wife during marriage, was community property for purposes of intestate distribution.
2. Whether Scanlon proved the property was Mary’s separate property based on Jennie Klotsche’s alleged donative intent and the earlier unexecuted deed.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed.
- The court held the store property was community property and was properly distributed entirely to Pete as the surviving spouse under RCW 11.04.050.
- The court rejected Scanlon’s claim that the evidence established the store property as Mary’s separate property.

## Legal Principles

- In Washington, property acquired during marriage is presumed to be community property, and the presumption is especially strong when title is taken in the names of both spouses as husband and wife.
- A party asserting that property acquired during marriage is separate property bears the burden to overcome the community-property presumption with clear and convincing evidence.
- An unexecuted deed does not effect a transfer of title and does not, by itself, establish a completed gift to one spouse as separate property.
- When the operative conveyance places title in both spouses’ names and the spouses treat the asset as community property, those facts support classification as community property.
- If an asset is community property, Washington’s intestate succession rules distribute it to the surviving spouse (RCW 11.04.050); if it is separate property, different shares may apply, including distribution to a parent (RCW 11.04.020).

## Conclusion

Because the only effective conveyance placed title to the store property in Pete and Mary Salvini as husband and wife during marriage, and Scanlon did not present clear and convincing proof that the property was Mary’s separate property, the Washington Supreme Court held the store property was community property and affirmed distribution of the entire property to Pete under RCW 11.04.050.


In re Salvini's Estate, 397 P.2d 811 (1964)