Seattle Attorneys Blog
Income acquired while people are in a Washington Committed Intimate Relationship (“CIR”) is treated as community property. At the end of a CIR, a court may only distribute property that would be characterized as community property if the parties were married. A party recently challenged a monetary award for unpaid wages to the woman with whom he had been in a CIR.
The man petitioned to end his CIR with the woman on February 14, 2022. According to the appeals court’s unpublished opinion, she had refused to return a vehicle he had bought before the relationship. She alleged she started working for him on July 20, 2018 and had not been paid for her work.
The man presented evidence indicating the woman was his employee beginning on July 20, 2018. He also presented an email from her alleging she was owed more than $65,000 in unpaid wages. He stated in his financial declaration that he worked last at the beginning of April, 2020. The woman testified they had worked together and she “was running the entire company . . . during the pandemic.” She testified she had not received any compensation.
In its letter decision, the court found the CIR started in July 2018 and stopped on April 11, 2021. In its written findings of fact, however, the court found the CIR started in 1998. The court found that the man let the woman use his vehicle during the CIR, but it was separate property he acquired before the CIR. The court ordered the woman to return it.
The trial court concluded the woman’s unpaid wages were a benefit to the community and divided the value equally and awarded her $32,620.
The man appealed, arguing the court erred in awarding the woman the monetary judgment for her uncompensated services.
The trial court found the woman worked for the man’s business between August 2018 to February 2021. The court also found she had not been compensated for those services and the community had an interest in those unpaid wages. The court found the woman would have earned $65,240 and awarded her half of that amount.
The man argued on appeal there was not substantial evidence supporting the finding regarding the value of the unpaid wages. He argued that the only evidence supporting the figure was an email between the parties that should have been excluded from evidence as an offer to compromise. The court noted, however, that he had moved to admit the email into evidence. He, therefore, invited the error and was barred from challenging the admissibility on appeal.
He also argued the email did not state how the wages were calculated and included conflicting information on her start and end dates. He also argued he stopped working on April 1, 2020, so she could not have worked after that time.
The appeals court noted the trial court had considered other evidence, including other documents indicating she was an employee, the woman’s declaration that she had worked five days a week from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. for two and a half years, her minimum wage calculation that showed $65,240 in unpaid wages, the woman’s testimony that the parties worked together and she ran the company during the pandemic, and a text message from the man indicating she ran the company while he was absent.
The appeals court concluded a rational person could believe the truth of the findings and that a reasonable view of the disputed evidence substantiated the findings. The appeals court concluded there was substantial evidence supporting the findings and no error in the $32,620 award.
The appeals court also concluded the discrepancy regarding the start of the CIR in the court’s finding and its letter decision was just a scrivener’s error and remanded for correction.
The appeals court affirmed the monetary award and remanded so the court could correct the error in the date the CIR began.
If you are ending a relationship that you believe may qualify as a Committed Intimate Relationship, a skilled Washington family law attorney can advise you of your rights and obligations. Contact Blair & Kim, PLLC, at (206) 622-6562 to set up a consultation to discuss your case.