Baker v. Couch
221 P. 1089, 74 Colo. 380, 1923 Colo. LEXIS 508 (1923)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court will not provide a remedy to either party involved in a contract or transaction founded upon an illegal or immoral consideration where the parties are in pari delicto (equally at fault). The court will leave the parties as it finds them.
Facts:
- A 23-year-old man, the plaintiff, and a 31-year-old woman, the defendant, were engaged in an illicit and adulterous relationship.
- The plaintiff owned thirty-five promissory notes.
- During their relationship, the plaintiff delivered the notes to the defendant.
- The defendant testified that the consideration for the transfer of the notes was their past, present, and future illicit relations.
- The parties later signed a contract reciting the consideration as 'love and affection' and that the plaintiff could 'continue the friendship' by calling on the defendant.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff filed a replevin action in the trial court to recover thirty-five promissory notes from the defendant.
- The case was initially dismissed based on a stipulation, but the trial court later vacated that order on the plaintiff's motion and reinstated the case.
- At the close of the plaintiff's case at trial, the defendant's motion for a nonsuit on the grounds of immoral consideration was denied.
- The trial court refused the defendant's requested jury instruction that no recovery could be had if the consideration for the transfer was an illicit relationship.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and the trial court entered judgment on that verdict.
- The defendant, as plaintiff-in-error, brought the case to the state's highest court for review of the trial court's judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a party have a right to recover property transferred to another when the sole consideration for the transfer was an illicit sexual relationship between the parties?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Burke
No. A party cannot recover property when the sole consideration for its transfer was an illegal or immoral act, such as an illicit sexual relationship. The court found that the evidence overwhelmingly showed that the transaction was based entirely on the parties' illicit affair. The law is settled that where a transaction is illegal or immoral and there is mutual misconduct, courts will not aid either party to enforce, revoke, or rescind it. The principle of in pari delicto applies, meaning the courts will leave the parties in the exact position in which they have placed themselves. It is irrelevant whether the illegality was formally pleaded; if the evidence discloses it, the court must refuse to grant relief.
Analysis:
This case is a classic application of the in pari delicto doctrine, where courts refuse to adjudicate disputes arising from illegal or immoral contracts. The decision reinforces the public policy that the judicial system will not be used to enforce or unwind agreements that are contrary to law or public morality. It establishes that even if the parties try to frame the transaction in other terms (like 'gift' or 'love and affection'), the court will look to the true nature of the consideration. This precedent directs lower courts to dismiss such cases sua sponte (on their own initiative) once the illicit nature of the underlying transaction becomes clear from the evidence, regardless of the claims pleaded by the parties.
