Beginning with the case of Marvin v. Marvin, 18 Cal.3d 660 (1976), a new word entered the American vocabulary: palimony. Palimony was supposed to be an alimony-like support payment for one partner of a cohabiting unmarried couple. The argument was that, even where there was no explicit written or oral contract, the actions of the parties could make it appear that a constructive contract existed and therefore it was enforceable. Pursuant to that contract, payments might be owed to one of the cohabitants for support.
The seminal case regarding this theory was the case of the actor, Lee Marvin, who had been living with Michele Triola for a number of years. Triola alleged that she and Marvin had an agreement that was proved by their actions. She gave up her own career in order to take care of Marvin and become his homemaker. His portion of the agreement was that she was entitled to one half of his income and property that was acquired during the relationship. When the relationship was terminated, Michele Triola sued for what was labeled “palimony,” i.e., support payments based on the alleged oral agreement. The appeals court permitted her to proceed on the ground that a constructive contract for such services could exist, but the jury awarded plaintiff nothing, stating that she did not prove either that an implied contract existed or, in the alternative, her worth as a housekeeper.
Most states other than California follow a more traditional common law rule that permits express written and oral contract theories, but rejects implied or constructive contract theories. In addition, no court in the United States would accept the fact that a meretricious contract exclusively for sexual services is enforceable. The following are states that have enforced cohabitation agreements, either oral or written:
Alaska – Levar v. Elkins, 604 P.2d 602 (1980).
Arizona – Carroll v. Lee, 148 Ariz. 10, 712 P.2d 923 (1986); Cook v. Cook, 142 Ariz. 573, 691 P.2d 664 (1984).
Connecticut – Boland v. Catalano, 202 Conn. 333, 521 A.2d 142 (1987).
Florida – Poe v. Estate of Levy, 411 So. 2d 253 (1982).
Hawaii – Maria v. Frietas, 832 P.2d 259 (1992).
Indiana – Glasgo v. Glasgo, 410 N.E.2d 1325 (1980).
Iowa – Slorum v. Hammond, 346 N.W.2d 485 (1984).
Maryland – Donovan v. Seuderi, 51 Md. App. 217, 443 A.2d 121 (1982).
Massachusetts – Green v. Richmond, 369 Mass. 47, 337 N.E.2d 691 (1975).
Michigan – Carnes v. Sheldon, 109 Mich. App. 204, 311 N.W.2d 747 (1981); Tyranski v. Piggins, 44 Mich. App. 570, 205 N.W.2d 595 (1973).
Mississippi – Pickens v. Pickens, 490 So. 2d 872 (1986).
Nebraska – Kinkenon v. Hue, 207 Neb. 698, 301 N.W.2d 77 (1981).
Nevada – Hay v. Hay, 100 Nev. 196, 678 P.2d 672 (1984); Warren v. Warren, 94 Nev. 309, 579 P.2d 772 (1978).
New Hampshire – Joan S. v. John S., 121 N.H. 96, 427 A.2d 498 (1981); Tapley v. Tapley, 122 N.H. 727, 449 A.2d 1218 (1982).
New Jersey – Crowe v. DeGioia, 90 N.J. 126, 447 A.2d 173, appeal after remand, 303 N.J. Super. 22, 495 A.2d 889, aff'd., 102 N.J. 50, 505 A.2d 591 (1986).
New Mexico – Dominguez v. Cruz, 95 N.M. 1, 617 P.2d 1322 (1980).
New York – Morone v. Morone, 50 N.Y.2d 481, 429 N.Y.S.2d 592, 407 N.E.2d 438 (1980).
North Carolina – Suggs v. Norris, 88 N.C. App. 539, 364 S.E.2d 159, cert. denied, 322 N.C. 486, 370 S.E.2d 236 (1988).
Oregon – Beal v. Beal, 282 Or. 115, 577 P.2d 507 (1978); Ireland v. Flanagan, 51 Or. App. 837, 627 P.2d 496 (1981).
Pennsylvania – Mullen v. Suchko, 279 Pa. Super. 499, 421 A.2d 310 (1980).
Texas – Small v. Harper, 638 S.W.2d 24 (1982).
Washington – In re Estates of Thornton, 81 Wash.2d 72, 499 P.2d 864 (1972).
Wisconsin – Watts v. Watts, 137 Wis.2d 506, 405 N.W.2d 303 (1987); Matter of Estate of Steffes, 95 Wis.2d 490, 290 N.W.2d 697 (1980).
Wyoming – Kinnison v. Kinnison, 627 P.2d 594 (1981).
