Wilcox v. Trautz
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
693 N.E2d 141 (MA)
Summary:
Carol Wilcox and John Trautz lived together as an unmarried couple for 25 years, beginning when they were both in their twenties. During that period, Wilcox contributed $25 a week toward general household expenses. She performed household duties, including all the food and clothes shopping, which she paid for solely from her earnings. When Wilcox became involved in another relationship, Trautz sought legal advice regarding his rights with respect to the assets acquired during their relationship. The parties signed an agreement providing, among other things, that “each party’s earnings and property is his or hers alone, and the other party shall have no interest in the property of the other.” The assets, all in Trautz’s name, included a house, valued at $180,000; an amphibious airplane, valued at $55,000; various bank accounts totaling $1,300; individual retirements accounts; and a one-half share of real estate in Maine, valued at $15,000. Wilcox had no assets other than a small bank account. the other one-half share of the Maine real estate, household furniture, clothing, and jewelry. The lower court judge held that the agreement was invalid and that to prevent unjust enrichment, Wilcox was entitled to damages of approximately $30,000. Trautz appealed.
The Court’s Opinion:
Justice Greaney:
We have not previously passed on the validity of written agreements between two unmarried cohabitants that attempt to define the rights of the parties as to services rendered and property acquired during their relationship. Our early decisions precluded the enforcement of an agreement between unmarried parties if the agreement was made in consideration that the parties should cohabit. More recently, we have held valid oral promises between unmarried cohabitants so long as “illicit sexual relations were [not] an inherent aspect of the agreement or a ‘serious and not merely an incidental part of the performance of the agreement.” Margolies v. Hopkins, 514 N.E.2d 1079 (1987).
Social mores regarding cohabitation between unmarried parties have changed dramatically in recent years and living arrangements that were once criticized are now relatively common and accepted. “As an alternative to marriage, more couples are choosing to cohabit. These relationships may be of extended duration, sometimes lasting as long as many marriages. In many respects, these cohabitation relationships may be quite similar to conventional marriages; they may involve commingling of funds, joint purchases of property, and even the birth of children.” With the prevalence of nonmarital relationships today, a considerable number of persons live together without benefit of the rules of law that govern property, financial, and other matters in a marital relationship. Thus, we do well to recognize the benefits to be gained by encouraging unmarried cohabitants to enter into written agreements respecting these matters, as the consequences for each partner may be considerable on termination of the relationship or, in particular, in the event of the death of one of the partners. “In recent years, increased attention has focused on the advisability of unmarried couples entering into cohabitation contracts in which they. . . detail the financial consequences of dissolution.” This may be especially important in a jurisdiction like Massachusetts where we do not recognize common law marriage, do not extend to unmarried copies the rights possessed by married couples who divorce, and reject equitable remedies that might have the effect of dividing property between unmarried parties.
Courts in other jurisdictions have concluded, as we did in Margolies v. Hopkins, supra, that an express agreement between adult unmarried persons living together is unenforceable only to the extent that it explicitly and inseparably is founded on sexual relations. . . . Furthermore, such agreements are not invalid merely because the parties may have contemplated the creation or continuation of a no marital relationship when they entered into the agreement. As the New York Court of Appeals stated in Morone v. Morone, 413 N.E.2d 1154, “[t]he theory of these cases is that while cohabitation without marriage does not give rise to the property and financial rights which normally attend the marital relation, neither does cohabitation disable the parties from making an agreement within the normal rules of contract law.” Although none of these cases specifically concerns a written agreement between unmarried cohabitants attempting to resolve issues such as the parties’ rights as to property, earnings, and services rendered, the principles they announce also apply to such an agreement. Implicit in these principles is tacit acknowledgement that unmarried cohabitants may agree to hold real property jointly or in common, agree to create joint bank and other accounts, do the same for investments, and, of course, make testamentary dispositions. These financial and property arrangements stem from a relationship that involves sexual cohabitation, but, in creating them, the parties are principally motivated by an intention to hold. or dispose of, property in a mutually acceptable way in order to manage day-to-day matters and to avoid litigation when the relationship ends. Such financial planning is enforceable according to the usual rules of contract. It makes no sense to uphold these arrangements between unmarried cohabitants, but to withhold enforcement of written agreements between the same parties when they attempt to settle the financial and other consequences if they should separate.
To the extent we have not previously done so, we adopt the view that unmarried cohabitants may law-fully contract concerning property, financial, and other matters relevant to their relationship. Such a contract is subject to the rules of contract law and is valid even if expressly made in contemplation of a common living arrangement, except to the extent that sexual services constitute the only, or dominant, consideration for the agreement, or that enforcement should be denied on some other public policy ground. We shall no longer follow cases in this Commonwealth to the contrary.
Nothing we say here today is intended to derogate from the clear distinction we have made in our cases between the legal rights of married and unmarried cohabitants. . . . Nor should anything we have said be taken as a suggestion or intimation that we are retreating from our prior expressions regarding the importance of the institution of marriage and the strong public interest in ensuring that its integrity is not threatened. We have never recognized common law marriage in this Commonwealth, nor have we “permitted the incidents of the marital relationship to attach to an arrangement of cohabitation without marriage.” We do not do so now.
We conclude that the plaintiff and the defendant were free to contract with respect to property, financial, and other matters relevant to their relationship, and that the specific agreement at issue is valid and enforceable. It is undisputed that the parties, both adults, had the capacity to contract and understood each other’s financial worth prior to the execution of the agreement. Moreover, the plaintiff was advised to seek counsel regarding the agreement and chose not to do so. There was no claim of fraud, overreaching, or unconscionability. The plaintiff is employed and makes no assertion that as a result of the agreement, she will be unable to support herself. The judge found that the plaintiff was not forced or coerced to sign the agreement.
Finally, we note that the plaintiff voluntarily entered into a relationship with the defendant, and continued to live with him for many years despite her knowledge that he was unlikely to marry her. The agreement she signed essentially tracked the living arrangement she had shared with the defendant for twenty-five years, in which they maintained separate legal and financial identities, and did not merge their financial affairs. There is no evidence that during the course of their relationship, the plaintiff was the “weaker” of the two cohabitants, or that she had been dissatisfied with the way they managed their affairs.
The judgment is vacated, and a new judgment is to be entered declaring the agreement to be valid and enforceable and disposing of the damages claim in the defendant’s favor.
So ordered.
Required to do:
Question 1. On what occasion would the court’s early decision preclude the enforcement of any agreement between unmarried parties?
Question 2. What was required in more recent decisions for oral promises between unmarried cohabitants to be valid?
Question 3. Why does the court believe it should recognize the benefits tobe gained by encouraging unmarried cohabitants to enter into written agreements?
Question 4. What is the theory of the cases holding that express agreements between adult unmarried persons living together are enforceable?
Question 5. What view does the court adopt regarding contracts of unmarried cohabitants?