SPOKANE, Wash. (AP) – A judge has awarded $6,150 to a Spokane woman to settle a dispute over property her lesbian partner bought during their 11-year relationship and sold after they separated.

The amount was far less than Roseanne Day sought from Linda Kelsh, who retired Spokane County Superior Court Judge Harold Clarke said bore the majority of household costs during the couple’s “meretricious,” or marriage-like, relationship that ended in December 2002.

Day sued in 2003, contending she should have half of the proceeds of undeveloped land the couple acquired in 1990 on Long Lake, also known as Lake Spokane. Kelsh sold the property after the couple separated.

Clarke found that that Day’s property interest was overwhelmed by Kelsh’s contributions to the household.

Kelsh’s attorney, Jerry Davis, said his client felt “vindicated … that a third party was able to look at how generous she was and that she got credit for that.”

Day is a teacher and Kelsh owns a mall popcorn and candy store.

The case is believed to be the first in Spokane County to put a same-sex couple on the same footing as other unmarried couples.

Clarke’s finding for Day was made possible by a February 2004 ruling by the Washington Court of Appeals. The court said in another case that unmarried couples don’t have to be heterosexual to have their property divided as though they were married.

Clarke said he found little reason for Day to receive anything, but after balancing Kelsh’s contributions against Day’s interest in the lakefront property, awarded Day $6,150.

Day’s attorney, Stanley Perdue, indicated in a two-day trial last month that Day’s share from Kelsh’s sale of the property in August 2003 should be $35,000.

If the couple were married, the property would be divided equally.

But for marriage rules to extend to unmarried people, a court must find that the couple intended to assume marital roles that are legally denied to same-sex couples.

One standard is the pooling of assets, and Clarke found there was little of that in the two women’s relationship.

He noted that Day moved into Kelsh’s home and that Kelsh paid the $10,000 down payment on the disputed lakefront property. Only Kelsh’s name appeared on the deeds and mortgages for either property.

Clarke also rejected Day’s claim that she should be compensated for many hours of unpaid work in Kelsh’s store. He found Day was paid $24,220 for her work.

The judge also gave Kelsh credit for paying 80 percent of the $10,000 cost of a master’s degree that enabled Day to obtain full-time work about the time she and Kelsh separated.

Trial testimony indicated Day worked only part time as a teacher and had little income while living with Kelsh. Day said in court documents that she assumed the role of “the little hausfrau.”

Kelsh said she received no financial or emotional support from Day when her business fell on hard times and she suffered colon cancer, and that it ceased to be a romantic relationship in 1998.