Marriage of Mueller
Washington Court of Appeals
140 Wash. App. 498, 167 P.3d 568 (2007)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
John Mueller (plaintiff) and Shauna Mueller (defendant) married in 1983. In 1985, Shauna took a leave of absence from work to care for the Muellers’ newborn child. Shortly after, the Muellers entered into an oral agreement that John’s income would first be used to pay joint expenses and then the remainder of each paycheck would be divided equally between them. John and Shauna each had control over their share of the divided income. The agreement was never reduced to writing. The oral agreement was originally intended to be temporary, covering only the time Shauna was on leave from work. However, although the Muellers were inconsistent about complying with the agreement’s terms, it remained in force throughout their marriage. After 19 years of marriage, John filed for divorce. John argued that the oral agreement transmuted John’s community-property income into the separate property of each John and Shauna upon division. Over the years, Shauna had used more of her share of the divided funds than John had, and John wanted the property division upon divorce to reflect that imbalance. Shauna countered, arguing that the oral agreement was a money-management agreement, not a transmutation agreement, and that all of the money should be classified as community property. The trial court held that the oral agreement was a valid transmutation agreement and divided the Muellers’ property accordingly. Shauna appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Cox, 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.