And most of them are in the western United States, where the law was likely introduced for several reasons. First, it was probably tempting for women to settle in these states (attracted by common ownership of assets). Second, it was probably created in the West because states that had incorporated concepts of communal property into their constitutions adopted their constitutions later than eastern states and at a time when women`s rights were advancing at the national level. Next, we consider whether the Court of Appeal erred in the fact that the Court of Justice wrongly held that the extrinsic evidence of the parties` intention to establish that the common ownership agreement had no effect was not. Schweitzer, 81 Wash. App. at 594-95, 915 p.2d 575. The Court of Appeal held that extrinsic evidence cannot be used to erase or contradict the written terms of an agreement. Schweitzer, 81 Wash.
App. at 595, 915 p.2d 575. The court concluded that the court had “used inadmissible word evidence to remove an entire paragraph of the agreement and give it no effect.” Schweitzer, 81 Wash. App. at 595, 915 p.2d 575. A common ownership agreement for the transfer of immovable property to other States may be ineffective, particularly where those States are not States of common ownership. In case of inefficiency, it is necessary to carry out an additional succession in the State where the property is located. “But Washington is a state of common ownership, so why do I need a community prosperity agreement?” Good question. .