{
 "Littlefield": [],
 "Kovacs": [],
 "Chumbley": [
  {
   "q": "Chumbley marriage commingling acquisition",
   "case": "In Re Marriage of Chumbley",
   "date": "2003-08-14",
   "cit": [
    "74 P.3d 129"
   ],
   "snip": "\n74 P.3d 129 (2003)\n150 Wash.2d 1\nIn re the MARRIAGE OF Gerald Steven CHUMBLEY, Respondent, and\nMary Patricia Beckmann, Petitioner.\nNo. 72539-0.\nSupreme Court of Washington, En Banc.\nArgued February 25, 2003.\nDecided August 14, 2003.\n*130 Wiggins Law Office, Charles Wiggins, Kenneth Masters, Ba"
  }
 ],
 "Short": [
  {
   "q": "Short marriage characterization 61176-9",
   "case": "In Re the Marriage of Short",
   "date": "1995-05-10",
   "cit": [
    "890 P.2d 12",
    "125 Wash. 2d 865"
   ],
   "snip": "\n125 Wn.2d 865 (1995)\n890 P.2d 12\nIn the Matter of the Marriage of ROBERT T. SHORT, Petitioner, and PATRICIA A. SHORT, Respondent.\nNo. 61176-9.\nThe Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.\nFebruary 23, 1995.\nAs amended by order May 10, 1995.\nMaltman, Reed, North, Ahrens & Malnati, P.S., by Douglass A. North; Hollis Holman</"
  }
 ],
 "Borghi": [
  {
   "q": "Borghi estate community property presumption",
   "case": "In Re Estate of Borghi",
   "date": "2009-11-05",
   "cit": [
    "219 P.3d 932"
   ],
   "snip": "\n219 P.3d 932 (2009)\nIn the Matter of the ESTATE Of Jeanette L. BORGHI, Deceased.\nBobby G. Borghi, Personal Representative of the Estate of Jeanette L. Borghi, Appellant,\nv.\nArthur R. Gilroy, Respondent.\nNo. 80925-9.\nSupreme Court of Washington, En Banc.\nArgued March 24, 2009.\nDecided November 5, 2009.\n*933 Ca"
  },
  {
   "q": "Borghi Gilroy separate property tracing",
   "case": "Borghi v. Gilroy",
   "date": "2009-11-05",
   "cit": [
    "167 Wash. 2d 480"
   ],
   "snip": "\nStephens, J.\n\u00b61 This case concerns a dispute between the estate of Jeanette L. Borghi (Estate) and her son, Arthur Gilroy, over the characterization of real property acquired by Jeanette Borghi prior to her marriage to Robert1 Borghi and subsequently titled in both Robert and *482Jeanette Borghi\u2019s names. At the center of this dispute are appa"
  },
  {
   "q": "Borghi estate clear and convincing",
   "case": "In Re Estate of Borghi",
   "date": "2009-11-05",
   "cit": [
    "219 P.3d 932"
   ],
   "snip": "\n219 P.3d 932 (2009)\nIn the Matter of the ESTATE Of Jeanette L. BORGHI, Deceased.\nBobby G. Borghi, Personal Representative of the Estate of Jeanette L. Borghi, Appellant,\nv.\nArthur R. Gilroy, Respondent.\nNo. 80925-9.\nSupreme Court of Washington, En Banc.\nArgued March 24, 2009.\nDecided November 5, 2009.\n*933 Ca"
  }
 ],
 "Elam": [
  {
   "q": "Elam marriage presumption community burden",
   "case": "In Re the Marriage of Elam",
   "date": "1982-09-02",
   "cit": [
    "650 P.2d 213",
    "97 Wash. 2d 811"
   ],
   "snip": "\n97 Wn.2d 811 (1982)\n650 P.2d 213\nIn the Matter of the Marriage of NORMA IRIS ELAM, Respondent, and STANLEY PATRICK ELAM, Appellant.\nNo. 48219-5.\nThe Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.\nSeptember 2, 1982.\nClinton J. Henderson, for appellant.\nJay Roy Jones, for respondent.\nDOLLIVER, J.\nThis case was certified from D"
  }
 ],
 "Konzen": [],
 "Skarbek": [
  {
   "q": "Skarbek marriage separate property intent",
   "case": "In re the Marriage of Skarbek",
   "date": "2000-04-18",
   "cit": [
    "100 Wash. App. 444"
   ],
   "snip": "\nSweeney, J.\n\u2014 A rebuttable presumption arises that property acquired during marriage with separate funds is a gift to the community. In re Marriage of Hurd, 69 Wn. App. 38, 51, 848 P.2d 185 (1993). But depositing separate funds in a joint bank account is not an acquisition of property; therefore, no presumption attaches. John Skarbek deposited separate funds in a joint account. But he then traced and identified the separ"
  },
  {
   "q": "Skarbek marriage commingling community",
   "case": "In re the Marriage of Skarbek",
   "date": "2000-04-18",
   "cit": [
    "100 Wash. App. 444"
   ],
   "snip": "\nSweeney, J.\n\u2014 A rebuttable presumption arises that property acquired during marriage with separate funds is a gift to the community. In re Marriage of Hurd, 69 Wn. App. 38, 51, 848 P.2d 185 (1993). But depositing separate funds in a joint bank account is not an acquisition of property; therefore, no presumption attaches. John Skarbek deposited separate funds in a joint account. But he then traced and identified the separ"
  }
 ],
 "PearsonMaines": [
  {
   "q": "Pearson-Maines marriage gift presumption",
   "case": "Matter of Marriage of Pearson-Maines",
   "date": "1993-08-09",
   "cit": [
    "855 P.2d 1210",
    "70 Wash. App. 860"
   ],
   "snip": "\n70 Wn. App. 860 (1993)\n855 P.2d 1210\nIn the Matter of the Marriage of CHERYL L. PEARSON-MAINES, Respondent, and CHESTER E. MAINES, Appellant.\nNo. 29873-9-I.\nThe Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One.\nAugust 9, 1993.\nRichard W. Swanson and Millikan & Swanson, for appellant.\nGail B. Nunn and Arnett-Kremiaan &am;"
  }
 ],
 "Olivares": [
  {
   "q": "Olivares marriage characterization",
   "case": "Matter of Marriage of Olivares",
   "date": "1993-04-12",
   "cit": [
    "848 P.2d 1281",
    "69 Wash. App. 324"
   ],
   "snip": "\n69 Wn. App. 324 (1993)\n848 P.2d 1281\nIn the Matter of the Marriage of STEPHEN R. OLIVARES, Appellant, and THERESA R. OLIVARES, Respondent.\nNo. 28758-3-I.\nThe Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One.\nApril 12, 1993.\nPhilip A. Talmadge, Celeste A. McDonell, and Talmadge & Cutler, P.S.; Thomas D. Bigsby and Bigsby & Willson"
  }
 ],
 "Sedlock": [
  {
   "q": "Sedlock marriage separate property agreement",
   "case": "Matter of Marriage of Sedlock",
   "date": "1993-04-26",
   "cit": [
    "849 P.2d 1243",
    "69 Wash. App. 484"
   ],
   "snip": "\n69 Wn. App. 484 (1993)\n849 P.2d 1243\nIn the Matter of the Marriage of MARCIA SEDLOCK, Appellant, and THOMAS SEDLOCK, Respondent.\nNo. 28848-2-I.\nThe Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One.\nApril 26, 1993.\n*486 H. Michael Fields and Anderson & Fields, for appellant.\nWilliam L. Kinze"
  },
  {
   "q": "Sedlock marriage characterization",
   "case": "Matter of Marriage of Sedlock",
   "date": "1993-04-26",
   "cit": [
    "849 P.2d 1243",
    "69 Wash. App. 484"
   ],
   "snip": "\n69 Wn. App. 484 (1993)\n849 P.2d 1243\nIn the Matter of the Marriage of MARCIA SEDLOCK, Appellant, and THOMAS SEDLOCK, Respondent.\nNo. 28848-2-I.\nThe Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One.\nApril 26, 1993.\n*486 H. Michael Fields and Anderson & Fields, for appellant.\nWilliam L. Kinze"
  }
 ],
 "Glorfield": [],
 "Hadley": [
  {
   "q": "Hadley marriage separate property division",
   "case": "In Re the Marriage of Hadley",
   "date": "1977-06-09",
   "cit": [
    "565 P.2d 790",
    "88 Wash. 2d 649"
   ],
   "snip": "\nDolliver, J.\nThis is an appeal of the property division and maintenance award in a decree of dissolution. Appeal to this court was allowed pursuant to ROA I-14(e) (now RAP 4.2(a)(4)), due to \"fundamental and urgent issues of broad public import requiring prompt and ultimate determination\" presented by this case. Mr. Hadley, the respondent, has cross-appealed the award of attorney's fees to the wife.\nRichard and"
  },
  {
   "q": "Hadley marriage 88 Wash.2d 649",
   "case": "In Re the Marriage of Hadley",
   "date": "1977-06-09",
   "cit": [
    "565 P.2d 790",
    "88 Wash. 2d 649"
   ],
   "snip": "\nDolliver, J.\nThis is an appeal of the property division and maintenance award in a decree of dissolution. Appeal to this court was allowed pursuant to ROA I-14(e) (now RAP 4.2(a)(4)), due to \"fundamental and urgent issues of broad public import requiring prompt and ultimate determination\" presented by this case. Mr. Hadley, the respondent, has cross-appealed the award of attorney's fees to the wife.\nRichard and"
  },
  {
   "q": "Hadley marriage just and equitable",
   "case": "In Re the Marriage of Hadley",
   "date": "1977-06-09",
   "cit": [
    "565 P.2d 790",
    "88 Wash. 2d 649"
   ],
   "snip": "\nDolliver, J.\nThis is an appeal of the property division and maintenance award in a decree of dissolution. Appeal to this court was allowed pursuant to ROA I-14(e) (now RAP 4.2(a)(4)), due to \"fundamental and urgent issues of broad public import requiring prompt and ultimate determination\" presented by this case. Mr. Hadley, the respondent, has cross-appealed the award of attorney's fees to the wife.\nRichard and"
  }
 ],
 "Schwarz": [
  {
   "q": "Schwarz marriage commingling tracing",
   "case": "Damian Schwarz v. Susan M. Schwarz",
   "date": "2016-01-12",
   "cit": [
    "192 Wash. App. 180",
    "368 P.3d 173"
   ],
   "snip": "\n\n\n \n   *184\n   \n  Siddoway, C.J.\n \n\n  \u00b61 Susan Champagne appeals the property distribution ordered upon the dissolution of her marriage to Damian Schwarz. She challenges the trial court\u2019s characterization and distribution of several of her and Mr. Schwarz\u2019s retirement and other investment accounts. The character of the accou"
  }
 ],
 "Kraft": [
  {
   "q": "Kraft marriage separate property division dissolution",
   "case": "In Re the Marriage of Kraft",
   "date": "1992-07-23",
   "cit": [
    "832 P.2d 871",
    "119 Wash. 2d 438"
   ],
   "snip": "\n119 Wn.2d 438 (1992)\n832 P.2d 871\nIn the Matter of the Marriage of DONNA L. KRAFT, Petitioner, and BRYCE A. KRAFT, Respondent.\nNo. 58247-5.\nThe Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.\nJuly 23, 1992.\n*440 Chris A. Montgomery, for petitioner.\nSalina, Sanger & Gauper, by Allen M. Gauper,"
  },
  {
   "q": "Kraft marriage 119 Wash.2d 438",
   "case": "In Re the Marriage of Kraft",
   "date": "1992-07-23",
   "cit": [
    "832 P.2d 871",
    "119 Wash. 2d 438"
   ],
   "snip": "\n119 Wn.2d 438 (1992)\n832 P.2d 871\nIn the Matter of the Marriage of DONNA L. KRAFT, Petitioner, and BRYCE A. KRAFT, Respondent.\nNo. 58247-5.\nThe Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.\nJuly 23, 1992.\n*440 Chris A. Montgomery, for petitioner.\nSalina, Sanger & Gauper, by Allen M. Gauper,"
  }
 ],
 "Berol": [
  {
   "q": "Berol separate property deed community",
   "case": "Abel v. Abel",
   "date": "1955-11-10",
   "cit": [
    "289 P.2d 724",
    "47 Wash. 2d 816"
   ],
   "snip": "\n47 Wn.2d 816 (1955)\n289 P.2d 724\nEVA M. ABEL, Respondent,\nv.\nWALTER CLIVE ABEL, Appellant.[1]\nNo. 33259.\nThe Supreme Court of Washington, Department One.\nNovember 10, 1955.\n*818 Lester T. Parker and Clark W. Adams, for appellant.\nPaul O. Manley and William L. Hyndm"
  },
  {
   "q": "Berol v. Berol characterization",
   "case": "deElche v. Jacobsen",
   "date": "1980-12-31",
   "cit": [
    "622 P.2d 835",
    "95 Wash. 2d 237"
   ],
   "snip": "\n*248Horowitz, J.\n(dissenting) \u2014 I dissent from the majority's imposition of liability for the separate tort of one spouse upon the property of the marital community. The extension of community liability is inconsistent with the concept of community property in this state and further is unjustified and unwise without explicit statutory authority.\nI\n"
  }
 ],
 "Brewer": [
  {
   "q": "Brewer marriage separate property division",
   "case": "In re the Marriage of Brewer",
   "date": "1999-05-06",
   "cit": [
    "137 Wash. 2d 756",
    "976 P.2d 102"
   ],
   "snip": "\nGuy, C.J.\n(concurring) \u2014 I agree with the majority that the rule enunciated in In re Marriage of Brown, 100 Wn.2d 729, 675 P.2d 1207 (1984), applies to wage-replacement disability insurance benefits. I write separately because (1) I would specifically overrule Chase v. Chase, 74 Wn.2d 253, 444 P.2d 145 (1968), and (2) I would clarify that post-dissolution wage-replacement benefits are not \u201cassets\u201d that are be"
  },
  {
   "q": "Brewer marriage just and equitable property",
   "case": "In re the Marriage of Brewer",
   "date": "1999-05-06",
   "cit": [
    "137 Wash. 2d 756",
    "976 P.2d 102"
   ],
   "snip": "\nSmith, J.\nPetitioner Michael A. Brewer seeks review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, Division Two, which reversed and remanded to the Clark County Superior Court a ruling characterizing monthly payments to a permanently disabled spouse under a private disability insurance policy after dissolution of a marriage as separate property and not community property. We granted review. We affirm the Court of Appeals in part and re"
  },
  {
   "q": "Brewer marriage 137 Wash.2d",
   "case": "In re the Marriage of Brewer",
   "date": "1999-05-06",
   "cit": [
    "137 Wash. 2d 756",
    "976 P.2d 102"
   ],
   "snip": "\nGuy, C.J.\n(concurring) \u2014 I agree with the majority that the rule enunciated in In re Marriage of Brown, 100 Wn.2d 729, 675 P.2d 1207 (1984), applies to wage-replacement disability insurance benefits. I write separately because (1) I would specifically overrule Chase v. Chase, 74 Wn.2d 253, 444 P.2d 145 (1968), and (2) I would clarify that post-dissolution wage-replacement benefits are not \u201cassets\u201d that are be"
  }
 ],
 "Mueller": []
}