Facts: Respondent Andrew Clayton filed suit against Douglas Wilson in the Superior Court for King County following years of sexual abuse by Wilson that occurred while Clayton performed maintenance work on rental properties owned by Wilson and his former wife, petitioner Mary Kay Wilson. The trial court subsequently entered a judgment in Clayton’s favor, awarded damages, found the Wilsons’ marital community liable, and held that the earlier transfer of marital property to Mary Kay Wilson prior to the Wilsons’ divorce was void as fraudulent. Mary Kay Wilson appealed the trial court’s decision, asserting that the marital community was not liable for intentional torts and that the transfer had been proper. The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, leading Mary Kay Wilson to appeal to the Supreme Court of Washington.

Question(s): Is the Wilsons’ marital community liable for Douglas Wilson’s intentional tort of sexual abuse?

If so, was the transfer of property from the marital community to Mary Kay Wilson incident to the Wilsons’ divorce fraudulent?

Conclusion: Justice Sanders’ opinion for a unanimous Court held that the marital community was liable for Douglas Wilson’s sexual abuse as the abuse occurred in the course of Douglas Wilson managing rental property owned by the marital community. The Court also concluded that the evidence supported the trial court’s determination that the transfer of marital property to Mary Kay Wilson was void as fraudulent insofar as the transfer occurred immediately after Douglas Wilson was accused of sexual abuse and became aware of potential tort liability, Douglas Wilson continued to live on the property after the transfer, virtually all of the marital property was transferred to Mary Kay Wilson without her providing any equivalent consideration, and the transfer left Douglas Wilson insolvent. Thus, the Court reinstated the judgment imposed by the trial court.

Docket No. 81920-3 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 57891-0)

Petitioner: Mary Kay Wilson

(Counsel: Dennis John McGlothin)

Respondent: Andrew Clayton

(Counsel: James D. Hailey and Kathryn Goater)

Briefs:

Argument: Thursday, October 22, 2009 10:00am

[Source: TVW, http://tvw.org]

Decided: Thursday, January 21st, 2010

Prevailing Party: Andrew Clayton (Respondent)

Vote: 9-0

Citation: Pending

Court: Madsen1 Court (2010-)

Madsen

Johnson

Alexander

Sanders
(Majority)

Chambers

Owens

Fairhurst

Johnson

Stephens