Washington
Common Law Marriage in Washington State: Is It Recognized? (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 18, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 18, 2026. · 7 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Washington does not recognize common law marriage formed within the state. defines marriage as a civil contract between two capable adults, and requires that license before any marriage may be solemnized. Washington does, however, recognize a committed intimate relationship (CIR) that can entitle unmarried partners to equitable division of jointly acquired property when the relationship ends, though a CIR is not a marriage and does not confer marital status, spousal support rights, or inheritance rights. Washington also recognizes a common law marriage validly formed in another state.
Information last verified on June 2, 2026.
Does Washington recognize common law marriage?
Washington does not allow couples to form a common law marriage within the state. defines marriage as a civil contract between two persons who have each attained the age of 18 and who are otherwise capable. requires that a marriage license be obtained from a county auditor before any couple may be joined in marriage. These provisions work together to make the formal licensing process the exclusive pathway to a valid marriage in Washington.
Washington has never enacted a statute permitting informally formed marriages, and no Washington court has held that cohabitation alone, even with a mutual intention to be married, creates a valid marriage. Because Washington never recognized common law marriage formation, there is no grandfather cutoff date analogous to those in states that abolished a prior rule, such as Alabama (January 1, 2017) or Pennsylvania (January 1, 2005). A couple that cohabits in Washington for any length of time, holds joint accounts, uses the same last name, and presents as married has not formed a legally valid marriage under Washington law without a license.
What is a committed intimate relationship (CIR)?
Although Washington does not recognize common law marriage, Washington courts have developed a separate equitable doctrine for long-term unmarried couples: the committed intimate relationship (CIR). Previously called a meretricious relationship, the CIR doctrine allows a court to make a just and equitable division of property acquired during the relationship when the relationship ends. This doctrine exists entirely outside the law of marriage and does not create marital status.

The Washington Supreme Court established the foundational framework in Connell v. Francisco, 127 Wn.2d 339, 898 P.2d 831 (1995). The court identified five factors used to evaluate whether a CIR exists: the continuous nature of the relationship, its duration, the purpose of the relationship, the pooling of resources and services for joint projects, and the intent of the parties. No single factor is dispositive; courts look at the relationship as a whole.
The Washington Supreme Court extended the CIR doctrine in Olver v. Fowler, 161 Wn.2d 655, 168 P.3d 348 (2007), where the court applied the doctrine in an estate context after both partners died simultaneously in an accident. The court confirmed that property equitably acquired during a CIR is subject to just and equitable distribution and cannot be entirely controlled by the titleholder at the expense of the other partner.
What a CIR does and does not provide
A CIR is emphatically not a marriage. Understanding the distinction is critical because the two doctrines overlap in public discussion but differ sharply in legal consequence.
A CIR may provide:
- Equitable division of property acquired during the relationship, similar to how community property is divided in a marriage
- A court process to determine each partner's interest in that property
A CIR does NOT provide:
- Marital status of any kind
- The right to claim spousal support (maintenance) under
- Intestate inheritance rights under , which applies to spouses, not unmarried partners
- The ability to make medical decisions for an incapacitated partner without a separate healthcare directive or durable power of attorney
- Social Security spousal benefits, which require legal marriage
- The right to file joint federal or state income tax returns as married
- Any protection against the other partner's creditors in the way that marital property rules operate
Cohabiting couples in Washington who want the protections associated with marriage must either marry formally or create individual legal documents such as a domestic partnership registration, cohabitation agreement, beneficiary designations, and powers of attorney to approximate some of those protections.
Why Washington requires a license and does not recognize informal marriage
Washington's requirement for a formal marriage license reflects a deliberate legislative choice to make the public record of marriage a precondition of the relationship's legal existence. RCW 26.04.010 and 26.04.140, read together, require that any marriage involve a license issued by a county auditor, a waiting period, and a solemnization performed by an authorized officiant.
The legislature has affirmatively chosen not to extend marital status to cohabiting couples through informal recognition. At the same time, the legislature and courts have acknowledged through the CIR doctrine that long-term cohabiting couples can have legitimate property interests that deserve equitable protection. These are distinct policy choices, and Washington has made both of them simultaneously. The CIR doctrine fills a fairness gap in property disputes without crossing into marital status recognition.
Does Washington recognize a common law marriage from another state?
Yes. Washington gives full legal effect to a common law marriage that was validly formed in a state that permits such marriages. This recognition flows from the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution, Article IV, section 1, which requires each state to credit the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state, and from the common law doctrine of comity under which courts recognize foreign legal relationships valid where created.
A couple who formed a valid common law marriage in Colorado, Texas, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Rhode Island, Oklahoma, or another permitting state, and who later moves to Washington, retains that married status in Washington. Washington courts treat the couple as legally married for all purposes: divorce, equitable distribution of marital property under , spousal maintenance under , inheritance rights, and spousal evidentiary privileges.
To invoke Washington recognition, the asserting party must demonstrate that the claimed marriage met the law of the state where it was formed. For example, a Texas informal marriage requires proof of mutual agreement to be married, cohabitation in Texas, and representation to others of the marriage, per .
How to prove a common law marriage formed in another state
Because a common law marriage leaves no license or certificate, the party asserting the marriage bears the burden of proof. The standard and specific elements vary by state, but categories of evidence commonly examined include:

- Joint federal and state income tax returns filed as married
- Joint bank accounts, mortgage documents, or jointly titled real property
- Insurance policies listing the partner as a spouse or named beneficiary in a spousal capacity
- Loan applications, credit applications, or government forms identifying the relationship as a marriage
- Testimony from family, friends, coworkers, neighbors, or clergy who knew the couple as married
- Written correspondence, cards, or social media posts referring to each other as husband, wife, or spouse
- Use of a shared last name
- Affidavits signed by both parties acknowledging the marriage
No single item is determinative. Courts examine the totality of the relationship to determine whether the parties genuinely agreed to be married and held themselves out as married under the law of the state where the marriage was allegedly formed.
The 7-year myth
A persistent misconception holds that living together for 7 years automatically creates a common law marriage. This is false in every jurisdiction in the United States. No state, including those that still allow common law marriage formation, sets a minimum number of cohabitation years as a requirement or trigger.
In states that do allow common law marriage, the requirements focus on mutual present agreement to be married, cohabitation, and public representation of the marriage. Duration of the relationship may be relevant as circumstantial evidence, but no threshold period by itself creates a marriage.
In Washington, this point is reinforced by the fact that the state does not recognize common law marriage formation at all. No period of cohabitation in Washington, whether 7 years or 70, creates a marriage without a license. The CIR doctrine, discussed above, provides a separate equitable remedy for property but does not depend on a specific number of years either.
How a common law marriage ends
A valid common law marriage, wherever formed, can only be dissolved by a formal divorce, annulment, or the death of one spouse. There is no common law divorce or informal dissolution of a marriage.

This matters in Washington because a person with a valid out-of-state common law marriage who moves to Washington and simply separates without filing for divorce remains legally married. Attempting to marry a new partner in Washington while the prior marriage subsists would render the second marriage void or voidable.
Divorce proceedings for a common law marriage validly formed elsewhere proceed in Washington courts in the same manner as for a formally solemnized marriage. Washington applies its own law on dissolution under RCW 26.09, equitable distribution of marital property, and spousal maintenance to resolve the dissolution.
A CIR, by contrast, ends when the relationship ends. If a partner seeks equitable distribution of property acquired during a CIR, that person must bring a civil action in superior court. The process resembles a property division proceeding but does not involve the family law dissolution framework applicable to marriages.
For more on related financial rights in Washington, see Washington alimony laws and Washington child support laws.
For a state-by-state comparison of which states recognize common law marriage, see Common law marriage by state.
Disclaimer: This page provides general legal information about common law marriage and the committed intimate relationship doctrine in Washington state and is not legal advice. Marriage, property, and family law determinations are fact-specific and depend on individual circumstances. This information was verified as of June 2, 2026. Consult a licensed Washington family law attorney for advice about your specific situation.
Last updated: June 2, 2026.
More Washington Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Washington state have common law marriage?
No. Washington has never recognized common law marriage formed within the state. RCW 26.04.010 and RCW 26.04.140 require a marriage license before any couple can be legally married. No period of cohabitation in Washington creates a legal marriage without a license and ceremony.
What is a committed intimate relationship in Washington state?
A committed intimate relationship (CIR) is a court-recognized equitable doctrine that allows a Washington court to make a just and equitable division of property acquired during a long-term unmarried cohabiting relationship when that relationship ends. A CIR is not a marriage. It does not create marital status, spousal support rights, or inheritance rights. The doctrine was established in Connell v. Francisco, 127 Wn.2d 339 (1995), and extended in Olver v. Fowler, 161 Wn.2d 655 (2007).
Is 7 years of living together common law marriage in Washington?
No. This is a myth. No state sets a required number of cohabitation years as a trigger for common law marriage. Washington does not allow common law marriage formation at all. Living together for 7 years or any other period does not create a marriage in Washington without a license. However, a long-term relationship may qualify as a committed intimate relationship for purposes of property division.
Can I get property rights from a long-term relationship in Washington without being married?
Possibly, under the committed intimate relationship doctrine. If the court finds that a CIR existed based on factors including the continuous nature, duration, purpose, pooling of resources, and intent of the parties, it can make a just and equitable division of property acquired during the relationship. This does not make you a spouse and does not entitle you to spousal support or inheritance rights.
What if I had a common law marriage in another state and then moved to Washington?
Washington will recognize a common law marriage validly formed in another state under the Full Faith and Credit Clause and comity. You retain full married status in Washington for divorce, equitable distribution of marital property, spousal maintenance, and inheritance. You must obtain a formal divorce in Washington or another competent court to end that marriage.
Do I need a divorce if I have a common law marriage from another state?
Yes. A valid common law marriage can only be dissolved by formal divorce, annulment, or death. There is no informal dissolution. Failing to divorce before remarrying in Washington renders the second marriage void.
Which states allow common law marriage that Washington would recognize?
As of 2026, states still allowing formation of new common law marriages include Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Oklahoma (courts recognize it, though some agencies are inconsistent), Rhode Island, Texas (called informal marriage under Texas Family Code section 2.401), and Utah (requires a court order). The District of Columbia also recognizes common law marriage. Washington will recognize a marriage validly formed in any of those jurisdictions.
Updates
Repaired the Connell v. Francisco (1995) source link and added the RCW 11.04.015 citation.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the intro paragraph's misattribution of Washington's marriage-license requirement to RCW 26.04.010 (the civil-contract definition) — the license mandate comes from RCW 26.04.140, cited separately in the same sentence.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Texas Family Code
§ 2.401PROOF OF INFORMAL MARRIAGEIn forcecited in 22 of our articles
(a) In a judicial, administrative, or other proceeding, the marriage of a man and woman may be proved by evidence that: (1) a declaration of their marriage has been signed as provided by this subchapter; or (2) the man and woman agreed to be married and after the agreement they lived together in this state as husband and wife and there represented to others that they were married. (b) If a proceeding in which a marriage is to be proved as provided by Subsection (a)(2) is not commenced before the second anniversary of the date on which the parties separated and ceased living together, it is rebuttably presumed that the parties did not enter into an agreement to be married. (c) A person under 18 years of age may not: (1) be a party to an informal marriage; or (2) execute a declaration of informal marriage under Section 2.402. (d) A person may not be a party to an informal marriage or execute a declaration of an informal marriage if the person is presently married to a person who is not the other party to the informal marriage or declaration of an informal marriage, as applicable.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at statutes.capitol.texas.gov
Cited in 98 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Joplin v. Borusheski (2008) applied section 2.401(b): a suit filed over two years after separation raises a rebuttable presumption the parties never agreed to marry, which that proponent did not rebut. In Lan Ngoc Nguyen v. Dinh Duc Nguyen (2011) the 2.401(d) prior-marriage impediment was not proved, and that finding was reversed.
Leading cases:
- Lan Ngoc Nguyen v. Dinh Duc Nguyen (Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) 2011, 355 S.W.3d 82)✓A husband fought his wife's divorce petition by claiming an earlier Vietnamese marriage was an impediment under Section 2.401(d); the court found the proof of that prior marriage factually insufficient and remanded to decide the statute's three informal-marriage elements.
- Assoun v. Gustafson (Court of Appeals of Texas 2016, 493 S.W.3d 156)✓An ex-husband sued to have his former wife declared informally married to her boyfriend, ending his alimony; applying Section 2.401(a), the court affirmed summary judgment for the couple because their sworn denials of any agreement to marry defeated his circumstantial proof.
- Joplin v. Borusheski (Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) 2008, 244 S.W.3d 607)✓A man filed for divorce in 2005 claiming a common-law marriage, more than two years after the couple stopped living together; the court applied Section 2.401(b)'s rebuttable presumption of no agreement to marry and held his testimony failed to rebut it.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Common Law Marriage by State: Where It's Recognized (2026), Common Law Marriage in Arizona: Is It Recognized? (2026), Common Law Marriage in Arkansas: Is It Recognized? (2026)
Revised Code of Washington
§ 11.04.015Descent and distribution of real and personal estate.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
The net estate of a person dying intestate, or that portion thereof with respect to which the person shall have died intestate, shall descend subject to the provisions of RCW 11.04.250 and 11.02.070, and shall be distributed as follows: (1) Share of surviving spouse or state registered domestic partner. The surviving spouse or state registered domestic partner shall receive the following share: (a) All of the decedent's share of the net community estate; and (b) One-half of the net separate estate if the intestate is survived by issue; or (c) Three-quarters of the net separate estate if there is no surviving issue, but the intestate is survived by one or more of his or her parents, or by one or more of the issue of one or more of his or her parents; or (d) All of the net separate estate, if there is no surviving issue nor parent nor issue of parent. (2) Shares of others than surviving spouse or state registered domestic partner.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 59 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2025
Leading cases:
- In Re the Estate of Little (Washington Supreme Court 1986, 106 Wash. 2d 269)“…takers under the general descent and distribution statute (RCW 11.04.015). It is first necessary to compare th…”
- In Re Estates of Donnelly (Washington Supreme Court 1972, 81 Wash. 2d 430)“…thus pass by the statutes governing intestacy according to RCW 11.04.015, which says: The net estate of a pers…”
- Peffley-Warner v. Bowen (Washington Supreme Court 1989, 113 Wash. 2d 243)“…to this court by the United States Court of Appeals. RCW 11.04.015(1) is the pertinent Washington statute…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Washington Probate and Intestate Succession: What Happens Without a Will (2026)
§ 26.04.010Marriage contract—Void marriages—Construction of gender-specific terms—Recognition of solemnization of marriage not required.In forcecited in 3 of our articles
(1) Marriage is a civil contract between two persons who have each attained the age of 18 years, and who are otherwise capable. (2) Every marriage entered into in which either person has not attained the age of 18 years is void. (3) Where necessary to implement the rights and responsibilities of spouses under the law, gender-specific terms such as husband and wife used in any statute, rule, or other law must be construed to be gender neutral and applicable to spouses of the same sex. (4) No regularly licensed or ordained minister or any priest, imam, rabbi, or similar official of any religious organization is required to solemnize or recognize any marriage. A regularly licensed or ordained minister or priest, imam, rabbi, or similar official of any religious organization shall be immune from any civil claim or cause of action based on a refusal to solemnize or recognize any marriage under this section. No state agency or local government may base a decision to penalize, withhold benefits from, or refuse to contract with any religious organization on the refusal of a person associated with such religious organization to solemnize or recognize a marriage under this section.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 45 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2025
Leading cases:
- Singer v. Hara (Court of Appeals of Washington 1974, 11 Wash. App. 247)“…erred in concluding that the Washington marriage statutes, RCW 26.04.010 et seq., prohibit same-sex…”
- Andersen v. King County (Washington Supreme Court 2006, 158 Wash. 2d 1)“…e of Marriage Act (DOMA). Laws of 1998, ch. 1. DOMA amended RCW 26.04.010 to describe marriage as a civil contrac…”
- State v. Arlene's Flowers, Inc. (Washington Supreme Court 2019, 441 P.3d 1203)“…t meet the WLAD's definition of a "religious organization." RCW 26.04.010(7)(b) (defining…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Washington Emancipation Laws: How to Get Emancipated in Washington (2026)
§ 26.04.140Marriage license.In force
Before any persons can be joined in marriage, they shall procure a license from a county auditor, as provided in RCW 26.04.150 through 26.04.190.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 5 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2022
Leading cases:
- Heinsma v. City of Vancouver (Washington Supreme Court 2001, 144 Wash. 2d 556)“…ereas domestic partners may simply file an affidavit. See RCW 26.04.140. For example, the trial court no…”
- State v. Denton (Court of Appeals of Washington 1999, 97 Wash. App. 267)“…riage, they shall procure a license from a county auditor.” RCW 26.04.140. But Washington does not have a statute…”
- In the Matter of the Marriage of: Gurinder Kaur & Raghbir Singh Sandhu (Court of Appeals of Washington 2022)“…es parties obtain a license prior to the wedding ceremony. RCW 26.04.140. But the failure to obtain a license “…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 26.09.080Disposition of property and liabilities—Factors.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
In a proceeding for dissolution of the marriage or domestic partnership, legal separation, declaration of invalidity, or in a proceeding for disposition of property following dissolution of the marriage or the domestic partnership by a court which lacked personal jurisdiction over the absent spouse or absent domestic partner or lacked jurisdiction to dispose of the property, the court shall, without regard to misconduct, make such disposition of the property and the liabilities of the parties, either community or separate, as shall appear just and equitable after considering all relevant factors including, but not limited to: (1) The nature and extent of the community property; (2) The nature and extent of the separate property; (3) The duration of the marriage or domestic partnership; and (4) The economic circumstances of each spouse or domestic partner at the time the division of property is to become effective, including the desirability of awarding the family home or the right to live therein for reasonable periods to a spouse or domestic partner with whom the children reside the majority of the time.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 403 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
Leading cases:
- In Re the Marriage of Washburn (Washington Supreme Court 1984, 101 Wash. 2d 168)“…considered in dividing property and liabilities pursuant to RCW 26.09.080, or in awarding maintenance pursuant to…”
- In Re Marriage of Muhammad (Washington Supreme Court 2005, 108 P.3d 779)“…just and equitable after considering all relevant factors." RCW 26.09.080. Such factors include "[t]he economic c…”
- In re the Marriage of Muhammad (Washington Supreme Court 2005, 153 Wash. 2d 795)“…just and equitable after considering all relevant factors.” RCW 26.09.080. Such factors include “[t]he economic c…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Washington Divorce Laws (2026): Grounds, Residency, and Process
§ 26.09.090Maintenance orders for either spouse or either domestic partner—Factors.In forcecited in 3 of our articles
(1) In a proceeding for dissolution of marriage or domestic partnership, legal separation, declaration of invalidity, or in a proceeding for maintenance following dissolution of the marriage or domestic partnership by a court which lacked personal jurisdiction over the absent spouse or absent domestic partner, the court may grant a maintenance order for either spouse or either domestic partner. The maintenance order shall be in such amounts and for such periods of time as the court deems just, without regard to misconduct, after considering all relevant factors including but not limited to: (a) The financial resources of the party seeking maintenance, including separate or community property apportioned to him or her, and his or her ability to meet his or her needs independently, including the extent to which a provision for support of a child living with the party includes a sum for that party; (b) The time necessary to acquire sufficient education or training to enable the party seeking maintenance to find employment appropriate to his or her skill, interests, style of life, and other attendant circumstances; (c) The standard of living established during the marriage or…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 226 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
Leading cases:
- In Re the Marriage of Washburn (Washington Supreme Court 1984, 101 Wash. 2d 168)“…nt to RCW 26.09.080, or in awarding maintenance pursuant to RCW 26.09.090. The Washburn court failed to consider…”
- In the Matter of Marriage of Bulicek (Court of Appeals of Washington 1990, 59 Wash. App. 630)“…e trial court considered the statutory factors set forth in RCW 26.09.090 1 and acted within its dis…”
- In Re the Marriage of Hadley (Washington Supreme Court 1977, 88 Wash. 2d 649)“…ed by those factors set out in RCW 26.09.080 (property) and RCW 26.09.090 (maintenance). The trial court properly…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Washington Spousal Maintenance (Alimony) Laws: How It Works (2026), Alimony by State: How Spousal Support Works (2026)
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- RCW 26.04.010, Marriage contract. Washington State Legislature(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 26.04.140, Marriage license. Washington State Legislature(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 26.09.080, Disposition of property. Washington State Legislature(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 26.09.090, Maintenance order. Washington State Legislature(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- Connell v. Francisco, 127 Wn.2d 339, 898 P.2d 831 (1995). Washington Supreme Court(courtlistener.com)
- U.S. Constitution, Article IV, section 1 (Full Faith and Credit Clause). Cornell Legal Information Institute(law.cornell.edu)
- Texas Family Code section 2.401, Informal Marriage. Texas Legislature(statutes.capitol.texas.gov).gov
- Colorado Revised Statutes section 14-2-109.5, Common law marriages. Colorado General Assembly(leg.colorado.gov).gov
- RCW 11.04.015, Descent and distribution of real and personal estate (intestate share of a surviving spouse), Washington State Legislature(app.leg.wa.gov).gov