Judge divides women’s assets

A court case that may be the first to put gay couples on the same footing as other unmarried couples in Spokane County has resulted in a lopsided property settlement.

Retired Superior Court Judge Harold Clarke has ruled that Central Valley School District teacher Roseanne Day and Linda Kelsh, owner of the Candy ‘N’ Carmelcorn store at the NorthTown Mall, had a “meretricious,” or marriage-like, relationship in the 11 years they lived together.

That finding was made possible by a February 2004 ruling by the Washington Court of Appeals. The court said in another case that unmarried couples don’t have to be heterosexual to have their property divided as though they were married.

As Day had hoped, that meant she had a legal right to a share of property they acquired together. But Clarke found that Day’s property interest was overwhelmed by Kelsh’s contributions to the household.

Kelsh “bore the overwhelming majority of the cost of maintaining the home,” Clarke said in a memorandum decision that will be the basis for a formal order.

Clarke said he found little reason for Day to receive anything in her lawsuit against Kelsh, from whom she separated in December 2002. But, after balancing Kelsh’s contributions against Day’s interest in some lakefront property, Clarke awarded Day $6,150.

Day contended she should have half of the proceeds of the undeveloped land the couple acquired in 1990 on Long Lake, also known as Lake Spokane.

Her attorney, Stanley Perdue, indicated in a two-day trial last month that Day’s share from Kelsh’s sale of the property in August 2003 should be $35,000.

Perdue said Day was relinquishing all her other claims against Kelsh.

An even split is what would happen if the couple were married, but state law doesn’t automatically extend marriage rules to unmarried people.

Instead, the law spells out several tests to determine whether marriage rules should apply to unmarried couples when a court divides their property.

One of those tests is the pooling of assets, and Clarke found there was little of that in the two women’s relationship.

He noted that Day moved into Kelsh’s home and that Kelsh paid the $10,000 down payment on the disputed lakefront property.

Only Kelsh’s name appeared on the deeds and mortgages for either property.

Clarke also rejected Day’s claim that she should be compensated for many hours of unpaid work in Kelsh’s store.

He found Day was paid $24,220 for her work.

The judge also gave Kelsh credit for 80 percent of the $10,000 cost of a master’s degree that enabled Day to obtain full-time work about the time she and Kelsh separated.

Trial testimony indicated Day worked only part-time as a teacher and had little income while living with Kelsh.

Kelsh said she got no financial or emotional support from Day when her business fell on hard times and she suffered colon cancer.

Kelsh’s attorney, Jerry Davis, said she felt “vindicated … that a third party was able to look at how generous she was and that she got credit for that.”

Day’s attorney was not immediately available for comment.