Common Law Marriage in Washington State: Is It Recognized? (2026)

Washington does not recognize common law marriage formed within the state. RCW 26.04.010 defines marriage as a civil contract between two capable adults, and RCW 26.04.140 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. RCW 26.04.010 defines marriage as a civil contract between two persons who have each attained the age of 18 and who are otherwise capable. RCW 26.04.140 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 set out the modern framework for dividing property after such a relationship in Connell v. Francisco, 127 Wn.2d 339, 898 P.2d 831 (1995). Connell restated the factors used to evaluate whether the relationship exists, which include but are not limited to continuous cohabitation, the duration of the relationship, the purpose of the relationship, the pooling of resources and services for joint projects, and the intent of the parties; those factors come from earlier decisions, principally In re Marriage of Lindsey, 101 Wn.2d 299 (1984). Cohabitation is part of how Connell defines the relationship, "a stable, marital-like relationship where both parties cohabit with knowledge that a lawful marriage between them does not exist," but what separates it from ordinary dating is the stable, marital-like character of the relationship as a whole, not cohabitation by itself. 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 RCW 26.09.090
• Intestate inheritance rights under RCW 11.04.015, 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. The controlling authority is RCW 26.04.020(3), which provides that a marriage between two persons that is recognized as valid in another jurisdiction is valid in Washington. That statute codifies the place-of-celebration rule and the doctrine of comity, under which a court recognizes a marital relationship that was valid where it was created. The Full Faith and Credit Clause is often invoked for interstate marriage recognition, but it operates on judgments, and a marriage license or certificate is not a judgment, so the Washington statute and comity are what actually do the work.

RCW 26.04.020(3) also sets the limits a reader needs to know. An out-of-state marriage is valid in Washington only if it is not prohibited under RCW 26.04.020(1)(a), which bars a marriage where either party has a living spouse or registered domestic partner, or under RCW 26.04.020(2), which makes it unlawful to marry a sibling, child, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece, or nephew. A common law marriage that is valid in the state where it was formed will still not be recognized in Washington if it is bigamous or falls within those prohibited degrees of kinship.

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 RCW 26.09.080, spousal maintenance under RCW 26.09.090, 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 Texas Family Code section 2.401.

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. If you formed a common law marriage in another state and have only separated, get a free case evaluation from a Washington family lawyer on filing the divorce before you apply for a new marriage license (attorney advertising).

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

• Washington Alimony Laws
• Washington Divorce 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 traces to In re Marriage of Lindsey, 101 Wn.2d 299 (1984), which overruled the earlier title-controls presumption and adopted a rule requiring a just and equitable distribution of property following such a relationship; it was narrowed and clarified 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 continuous cohabitation, 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 RCW 26.04.020(3), a marriage that is recognized as valid in the jurisdiction where it was contracted is valid in Washington, unless either party already had a living spouse or registered domestic partner or the couple falls within the prohibited degrees of kinship in RCW 26.04.020(2). 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.