In re Marriage of Pennington

Clark Pennington (defendant) and Evelyn Van Pevenage (plaintiff) began dating in 1983. Pennington was separated from his wife but remained married until 1990. He cohabited with Van Pevenage consistently from 1985 to 1991, at which time Van Pevenage briefly moved out. Van Pevenage resumed her cohabitation with Pennington until 1993. Between 1993 and 1994, the parties lived separately and dated other people. They then resumed their cohabitation for one year before separating permanently in 1995. Throughout the relationship, Pennington paid for the shared residences and vehicles, and Van Pevenage made sporadic contributions to groceries and home furnishings. Van Pevenage claimed that Pennington proposed in 1986, but Pennington denied ever proposing marriage. After the couple’s final separation, Van Pevenage petitioned for the dissolution of a meretricious relationship, seeking a judicial division of property acquired during the relationship. The trial court held in Van Pevenage’s favor, the court of appeals reversed, and Van Pevenage appealed. James Nash (defendant) and Diana Chesterfield (plaintiff) began dating in 1986. Chesterfield was married but obtained a divorce in 1987. Also, between 1986 and 1989, Nash continued to date other women. In 1989, Nash moved into Chesterfield’s house. The couple opened a joint checking account, each contributing funds for living expenses. They kept separate accounts for other purposes and never made joint property purchases. Nash and Chesterfield stopped living together and closed the joint account in 1993. They briefly reconciled in 1994 and discussed marriage but never resumed cohabitation and separated permanently in 1995. Chesterfield petitioned for the dissolution of a meretricious relationship and an accompanying property division, which the trial court granted. The court of appeals affirmed, and Nash appealed. The Washington Supreme Court consolidated the Pennington and Chesterfield cases to address meretricious relationships.