Marriage of Brewer
Washington Supreme Court
137 Wash. 2d 756, 976 P.2d 102 (1999)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Michael Brewer (plaintiff) married Deborah Brewer (defendant) in 1988. Michael owned two private disability-insurance policies, which he paid for using community funds. Michael was permanently disabled by multiple sclerosis in 1991 and was no longer able to continue working as a dentist. After Michael became permanently disabled, future disability-insurance premiums were waived, and he received approximately $6,000 per month in disability payments. Michael filed for divorce in 1991 and argued that his future disability payments should be classified as his separate property. Deborah countered, arguing that the disability payments must be classified as community property because policies were acquired during the marriage and paid for using community funds. The trial court held that the future disability payments were Michael’s separate property because (1) the payments were intended to replace Michael’s future income, (2) the payments would end at age 65 and were not intended to replace retirement benefits, and (3) the community had paid $12,000 in disability-insurance premiums but had received approximately $300,000 in benefits by the time of the divorce. To balance the equities, the trial court awarded Deborah a disproportionate share of the community property. Deborah appealed, and the appellate court reversed, holding that Michael’s future disability payments were community property subject to equitable distribution. Michael appealed to the Washington Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Smith, J.)
Concurrence (Guy, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.