Gormley v. Robertson

83 P.3d 1042 (2004)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Between July 1988 and August 1998, P and D, who was a doctor, lived together. Both were lieutenant commanders in the Navy when they met. D is a physician; P is a nurse and administrator. They began their relationship having nearly equal incomes, but D earned significantly more by the time it ended. They pooled their resources and acquired property as well as debt. They had a joint banking account that was used to pay all monthly obligations, whether preexisting or incurred separately or jointly. The couple borrowed $20,000 from P's father. The money was used to consolidate debts, including paying off a debt of D that was incurred before their relationship began. The balance at separation was $7,188. The last joint payment on the loan was made on September 17, 1998. They bought a Yakima home that was put only in D's name for convenience and financing. Payments were made from the joint account into which they both deposited their incomes. They used joint funds to improve, decorate, and furnish the home. The net equity in the home at the time of separation was $35,255. They spent at least $38,704 on improvements. Upon separation in 1998, a dispute over property arose. P sued seeking equitable relief based on constructive trust, implied partnership, joint tenancy, joint venture, conversion, implied contract, and joint acquisition and later P added partition as another theory of recovery. Eventually, a judge agreed with P's position that the meretricious relationship doctrine applied to same-sex relationships. D appealed two findings that the court found that approximately $40,000.00 was spent from joint accounts, either directly or through payment on credit cards for personal property items D has retained and that D would be unjustly enriched if she was allowed to retain all the property, the home, the equity, and the improvements, and be responsible only for half of the jointly held credit cards that she maintained during this relationship. D also challenged many of the conclusions of law. D contends the court erred by concluding the meretricious relationship doctrine was applicable to this same-sex couple.