The Creasman court concluded that because the real property and account at issue were titled in the name of the deceased female partner, “they must both be regarded as belonging to her estate.” Id. Notably, the Creasman court also treated the division of property between the intimate partners as an initial question of what property would become part of the decedent’s estate. See id. ¶21 In subsequent cases, this court distinguished Creasman and began to question the validity of its presumption. Latham v. Hennessey, 87 Wn.2d 550, 553-55, 554 P.2d 1057 (1976) (noting that this court had developed numerous exceptions to the Creasman presumption to avoid inequitable results and indicating a willingness to overrule it); In re Estate of Thornton, 81 Wn.2d 72, 76-77, 81, 499 P.2d 864 (1972) (<HOLDING>). In 1984, in In re Marriage of Lindsey, 101
recognizing that a living intimate partner could demonstrate an implied partnership existed despite the creasman presumption holding that absent an agreement to the contrary any partner can act as an agent of the partnership when apparently carrying on in the usual way the business of the partnership  recognizing that in a divorce action one partys limited partnership interest could not be assigned to the other party without the consent of the general partner holding one partner can not sic maintain an action at law against another partner to recover an amount claimed by him by reason of partnership transactions until there has been a final settlement of the affairs of the partnership holding a mechanic working in a garage owned by a partnership is an employee of the partnership not the individual partner