Opinion ID: 2626321
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Meretricious Relationship

Text: ¶ 17 As a general rule, property acquired during a meretricious relationship is divisible upon dissolution of the relationship. Connell v. Francisco, 127 Wash.2d 339, 347, 349, 898 P.2d 831 (1995) (property that would have been characterized as community property had the parties been married .... is properly before a trial court and is subject to a just and equitable distribution). The record indicates that the trial court gave consideration to the approximately $8,200 of Muhammad's pension that accrued during the meretricious relationship, classifying the amount as minimal within the greater distribution scheme. However, as noted above, this aspect of the distribution is intertwined with the court's error in assigning fault to Gilbert for obtaining the protective order. As such, we note only that all assets acquired by both parties during the meretricious relationship must be reconsidered on remand.