<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Decoupling Seattle Family Law and Divorce Blog &#187; Pop Quiz</title>
	<atom:link href="http://decouplingblog.com/category/pop-quiz/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://decouplingblog.com</link>
	<description>Explaining and Discussing Washington Family Law</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:21:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Adventures in Community Property: Estate of Borghi (2009)</title>
		<link>http://decouplingblog.com/2011/07/adventures-in-community-property-estate-of-borghi-2009/</link>
		<comments>http://decouplingblog.com/2011/07/adventures-in-community-property-estate-of-borghi-2009/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jul 2011 18:30:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>liz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Pop Quiz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Top Posts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[community property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[community property agreement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Estate of Borghi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[quit claim deed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[separate property]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decouplingblog.com/?p=3879</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>This is yet another pop quiz that looks at how Washington courts apply our state&#8217;s community property laws to specific individuals and their unique stories.   To recap:  Washington is a <a href="../2009/09/whats-community-property/">community property</a> state, which generally means that all property that a couple acquires during their marriage is presumed to be jointly owned by both spouses, while all property acquired&#8230;</p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://decouplingblog.com/2011/07/adventures-in-community-property-estate-of-borghi-2009/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Adventures in Community Property Breaking News &#8211; Clayton v. Wilson (2010)</title>
		<link>http://decouplingblog.com/2010/01/adventures-in-community-property-breaking-news-clayton-v-wilson-2010/</link>
		<comments>http://decouplingblog.com/2010/01/adventures-in-community-property-breaking-news-clayton-v-wilson-2010/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 18:33:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>liz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Pop Quiz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[community property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[separate property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spouses]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[torts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decouplingblog.com/?p=3491</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>In two previous <a href="http://decouplingblog.com/2009/09/adventures-in-community-property-part-one-the-road-warrior-and-the-pedophile/">pop</a> <a href="http://decouplingblog.com/2009/10/adventures-in-community-property-part-two-the-wasted-hostage-taker-and-the-amorous-yachtsman/">quizzes</a>, we discussed previous Washington court decisions regarding community property and community liability for torts committed by one spouse.  To recap:  Washington is a <a href="http://decouplingblog.com/2009/09/whats-community-property/">community property</a> state, which generally means that all property that a couple acquires during their marriage is considered to be jointly owned by both spouses, and neither spouse can&#8230;</p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://decouplingblog.com/2010/01/adventures-in-community-property-breaking-news-clayton-v-wilson-2010/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pop Quiz: The Contemptuous Mother, The Absent Father, and the Problem Child</title>
		<link>http://decouplingblog.com/2009/11/the-contemptuous-mother-the-absent-father-and-the-problem-child/</link>
		<comments>http://decouplingblog.com/2009/11/the-contemptuous-mother-the-absent-father-and-the-problem-child/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:03:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>liz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Pop Quiz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contempt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[modification]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[parenting plan.]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decouplingblog.com/?p=3309</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>This quiz examines some of the considerations that a court addresses when determining whether to make significant changes to a <a href="http://decouplingblog.com/2009/06/how-to-get-temporary-orders-proposed-parenting-plan/">Parenting Plan</a>, such as by ordering that a child move from living primarily with one parent to the other.</p>
<p>In Washington custody cases, the court&#8217;s top priority is promoting a child&#8217;s &#8220;best interests.&#8221;   Another lesser, but still important priority&#8230;</p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://decouplingblog.com/2009/11/the-contemptuous-mother-the-absent-father-and-the-problem-child/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Adventures in Community Property, Part Two: The Wasted Hostage Taker and the Amorous Yachtsman</title>
		<link>http://decouplingblog.com/2009/10/adventures-in-community-property-part-two-the-wasted-hostage-taker-and-the-amorous-yachtsman/</link>
		<comments>http://decouplingblog.com/2009/10/adventures-in-community-property-part-two-the-wasted-hostage-taker-and-the-amorous-yachtsman/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2009 19:24:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>liz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Pop Quiz]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decouplingblog.com/?p=3182</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>This is the second part of our two part quiz on community property and a spouse&#8217;s liability for injuries caused by his or her spouse to another individual.  In the<a href="http://decouplingblog.com/2009/09/adventures-in-community-property-part-one-the-road-warrior-and-the-pedophile/"> first part</a> of this quiz, we looked at how a court determines whether or not the community should be liable for a tort (i.e., civil wrongdoing) committed by only&#8230;</p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://decouplingblog.com/2009/10/adventures-in-community-property-part-two-the-wasted-hostage-taker-and-the-amorous-yachtsman/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Adventures in Community Property, Part One: The Road Warrior and the Pedophile</title>
		<link>http://decouplingblog.com/2009/09/adventures-in-community-property-part-one-the-road-warrior-and-the-pedophile/</link>
		<comments>http://decouplingblog.com/2009/09/adventures-in-community-property-part-one-the-road-warrior-and-the-pedophile/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 22:39:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>liz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Pop Quiz]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decouplingblog.com/?p=3146</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Last week we discussed whether or not a spouse can be <a href="http://decouplingblog.com/2009/09/is-it-a-crime-to-damage-community-property/">criminally liable</a> for damaging his community owned property.  We’re continuing on the theme of <a href="../2009/09/whats-community-property/">community property</a> with this two-part pop quiz. Today we ask if community property (that is, property jointly owned by spouses) can be collected by a victim in cases where one spouse has committed&#8230;</p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://decouplingblog.com/2009/09/adventures-in-community-property-part-one-the-road-warrior-and-the-pedophile/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is it a Crime to Damage Community Property?</title>
		<link>http://decouplingblog.com/2009/09/is-it-a-crime-to-damage-community-property/</link>
		<comments>http://decouplingblog.com/2009/09/is-it-a-crime-to-damage-community-property/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:55:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>liz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Pop Quiz]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decouplingblog.com/?p=3129</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>As we discussed in a previous <a href="http://decouplingblog.com/2009/09/whats-community-property/">article</a>, Washington is a community property state.  This means that, in this state, most property that a couple acquires during their marriage is considered to be the property of both spouses.  So any given piece of property, from a car to a condo, that a married person buys is generally considered to be&#8230;</p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://decouplingblog.com/2009/09/is-it-a-crime-to-damage-community-property/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Who&#8217;s the Daddy?</title>
		<link>http://decouplingblog.com/2009/09/whos-the-daddy/</link>
		<comments>http://decouplingblog.com/2009/09/whos-the-daddy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 19:40:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>liz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Pop Quiz]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decouplingblog.com/?p=3084</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<h3><strong>The case of &#8220;JMK&#8221;</strong></h3>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p>This pop quiz involves a particularly interesting, and occasionally absurd issue in family law – the question of how the courts determine<em> </em>exactly <strong>who </strong>is the parent of a child.*  This probably seems like a simple issue to resolve, especially now that a DNA test can determine genetic relationship with virtual certainty.</p>
<p>However, the&#8230;</p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://decouplingblog.com/2009/09/whos-the-daddy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Case Of The Delayed Dad</title>
		<link>http://decouplingblog.com/2009/06/the-case-of-the-delayed-dad/</link>
		<comments>http://decouplingblog.com/2009/06/the-case-of-the-delayed-dad/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:49:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>topher</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Pop Quiz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[parentage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paternity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statute of limitations]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decouplingblog.com/?p=2426</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: yellow none repeat scroll 0% 0%;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This pop quiz involves a 2002 law which imposes a <a href="http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Statute+of+Limitations">statute of limitations</a> of two years for challenging another man&#8217;s claim of paternity. The main purpose of the law is to encourage stability for children by ensuring that the question of paternity for children is generally decided within two years of the child&#8217;s birth.&#8230;</p>
<p]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://decouplingblog.com/2009/06/the-case-of-the-delayed-dad/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pop Quiz &#8211; Judges On The Verge</title>
		<link>http://decouplingblog.com/2009/03/pop-quiz-judges-on-the-verge/</link>
		<comments>http://decouplingblog.com/2009/03/pop-quiz-judges-on-the-verge/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Mar 2009 16:22:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>topher</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Pop Quiz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marital misconduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[property settlement]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://raoandpierce.com/?p=375</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Pop Quiz is an ongoing series about cases from the Washington State Court of Appeals and the Washington Supreme Court.  Each post includes some facts about a specific case, then invites you to guess which of the four choices best describes the court’s ruling.</p>
<p>This is a divorce case involving a property settlement and a Judge who waxed eloquent about&#8230;</p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://decouplingblog.com/2009/03/pop-quiz-judges-on-the-verge/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

