Washburn v. Washburn
Washington Supreme Court
101 Wash. 2d 168, 677 P.2d 152 (1984)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Marigail Washburn (plaintiff) worked full time to support her husband, Gerald Washburn (defendant), while Gerald earned his veterinary degree. Gerald established his veterinary practice in 1979, and the Washburns divorced in 1981. The divorce court refused to grant Marigail spousal maintenance, also called alimony or spousal support, and refused to compensate Marigail for her contributions to Gerald’s attainment of his degree. Marigail appealed. Alice Gillette (plaintiff) worked full time to support her husband, Jack Gillette (defendant), while Jack attended both undergraduate and veterinary school. Alice turned down job promotions so that she could move with Jack as needed to complete his education. The Gillettes separated mere months before Jack obtained his veterinary degree. The divorce court held that Jack’s veterinary degree was not marital property subject to distribution but awarded Alice a lump-sum award, payable in installments, as an equitable right to restitution for her contributions to Jack’s attainment of his educational degrees. The court also awarded Alice $1 per year in maintenance. Jack appealed. The Washburn case and the Gillette case were consolidated on appeal to the Washington Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Dimmick, J.)
Dissent (Rosellini, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.