Subscribe in a reader


Issaquah Law Group - Injury Litigation Attorneys

TRUST: Personal injuries are personal. Which is why the attorneys at ILG treat every client and every case differently. Because they are different, and extremely personal. ILG was founded on the principle that strong client relationships are the key to successful legal representation and strong relationships are built on trust. Trust that you will be heard. Trust that you will be protected. Trust that every effort will be made to see justice done in your case. The singular goal of every ILG attorney is to earn and preserve that trust.

EXPERIENCE: ILG attorneys have a broad base of litigation experience to draw on in all Federal and State courts from on-the-ground investigations to Supreme Court appeals and we bring this experience to bear on behalf of our clients in personal injury and wrongful death claims arising out of motor vehicle accidents, bus versus pedestrian accidents, defective and dangerous products, medical malpractice, slip/trip and fall accidents, and catastrophic losses due to fire.

LOCATION: We are located on the Eastside in Issaquah, convenient to Bellevue, Redmond, Kirkland, Renton, Sammamish and North Bend. However, we provide legal services in King County, Pierce County, Snohomish County and throughout the entire state of Washington.

In addition, through The Amateur Law Professor Blog and LinkedIn postings, we share pertinent opinions and decisions of the Washington State Supreme Court, as well as the pertinent opinions and decisions of the Washington State Courts of Appeal so that our clients can be as update to date on cutting legal issues as we are.

Division III - Intimate Relationship Need Not be Pleaded in Marriage Dissolution Proceeding

Neumiller v. Neumiller

Divorces are never fun.

Husband and Wife had been living together since 1998. Husband bought a house in his own name. They later got married. The divorce comes about, and in the petition, Wife lists they had been married since 2005. In her amended petition right before trial, she adds a sentence stating they had been in an intimate committed relationship since 1998. 

The trial court prevented her from admitting evidence of the relationship prior to 2005, and thus classified the house (and lots of other stuff) as personal property. But that’s not the test, according to the court of appeals:

The trial judge accepted Mr. Neumiller's argument that the committed intimate relationship claim was raised too late by the amended pleading. This argument implicitly assumed that the existence of a committed intimate relationship needed to be pleaded before the trial court could consider its existence. While that certainly must be the case when a proceeding is instituted to distribute property acquired during a committed intimate relationship, we do not believe that it needs to be pleaded when it is merely an evidentiary fact in a marriage dissolution proceeding. Like any evidence, or theory of a case, it typically would be disclosed in pre-trial discovery, but evidence does not need to be included in the pleadings before it is admissible at trial.

The Court did point out that, of course, the pleading of a committed intimate relationship is needed when pleading a meretricious relationship without a marriage, but it is simply evidence within a marriage dissolution proceeding.

Subscribe in a reader

Copyright 2014-2018 by Issaquah Law Group, PLLC. Powered by Squarespace. Background image by jakeliefer.