Carnes v. Sheldon
311 N.W.2d 747 (1981) 109 Mich. App. 204 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Courts in Michigan will not grant an equitable division of property to unmarried cohabitants based on a theory of implied contract, as creating such a remedy would contravene public policy by judicially resurrecting common-law marriage, a matter best left to the Legislature.
Facts:
- In 1967, Bonnie Lee Carnes and two of her children moved into the home of Charles D. Sheldon and his four children after both parties had separated from their respective spouses.
- The arrangement began because Sheldon needed childcare and Carnes needed a place to live.
- Starting in 1970, Carnes worked as a school bus driver and contributed her wages to household expenses such as utilities and food, giving the remaining money to Sheldon.
- Around 1970, Sheldon purchased a new home, which was titled solely in his name; Carnes made no payments on the house.
- Carnes claimed Sheldon promised to marry her after her divorce was finalized in 1977 (which Sheldon funded), but he later refused.
- The parties maintained separate finances, including separate bank accounts and tax filings, and Carnes did not have access to Sheldon's credit card.
- Carnes admitted during testimony that there was never an express agreement to share or divide the property accumulated during their relationship; Sheldon consistently stated he felt everything was his.
- After approximately 12 years of cohabitation, the relationship ended, leading to the dispute.
Procedural Posture:
- Bonnie Lee Carnes filed a lawsuit against Charles D. Sheldon in Wayne County Circuit Court, the court of first instance.
- The complaint sought an equitable division of property and custody of Sheldon's minor child, Mary Ellen.
- The trial court judge denied Carnes's request for property division and awarded custody of the child to her biological mother, Constance Ward.
- Bonnie Lee Carnes, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Michigan Court of Appeals.
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 Michigan law permit a court to order an equitable division of property accumulated during a period of non-marital cohabitation based on a theory of contract implied in law or fact, where the parties had no express agreement to share property?
Opinions:
Majority - D. C. Riley, J.
No. Michigan law does not permit an equitable division of property for unmarried cohabitants based on an implied contract. The court first affirmed the trial court's finding that no express agreement to share property existed between the parties. It then rejected the plaintiff's claim for recovery based on a contract implied in law or fact, distinguishing prior cases that allowed recovery for commercial services (Roznowski v. Bozyk) or under an express agreement (Tyranski v. Piggins). The court held that Carnes's contributions were purely domestic household services, which are presumed to be gratuitous in a cohabitation relationship. The court explicitly declined to adopt the approach from California's Marvin v. Marvin, which allows for equitable remedies for non-marital partners. Instead, it aligned with Illinois's Hewitt v. Hewitt, reasoning that creating property rights for unmarried cohabitants raises significant public policy questions regarding the institution of marriage and is a matter for the Legislature, not the judiciary. Granting such relief would essentially resurrect common-law marriage, which was statutorily abolished in Michigan.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies Michigan's public policy against judicially creating property rights for unmarried cohabitants. By explicitly rejecting the influential Marvin v. Marvin framework, the court established a bright-line rule requiring an express agreement for any property claims arising from a non-marital relationship. This ruling places the onus on cohabiting partners to formally contract for any intended property sharing, as courts will not imply such an agreement from the relationship itself. The decision signals a strong stance of judicial restraint, deferring to the Legislature on significant social policy matters concerning the legal status of non-marital relationships.
Unlock the full brief for Carnes v. Sheldon