Posik v. Layton
695 So. 2d 759 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A written agreement for lifetime support and services between two unmarried, cohabitating adults is legally enforceable, provided the contract is not inseparably based upon illicit consideration for sexual services.
Facts:
- Dr. Nancy L.R. Layton and Emma Posik, a nurse, were in a close, long-term relationship.
- To induce Posik to quit her job, sell her home, and move with her to a new county, Layton entered into a formal written agreement with Posik.
- The agreement stipulated that Posik would reside with and care for Layton's home for the rest of Posik's life.
- In exchange, Layton agreed to provide all financial support, leave her entire estate to Posik, and name Posik as the beneficiary of all her non-probate assets.
- The contract included a liquidated damages clause requiring Layton to pay Posik $2,500 per month for life if Layton breached the agreement, for example by bringing a third person into the home without Posik's consent.
- Posik also loaned Layton $20,000, which was evidenced by a separate promissory note.
- Approximately four years later, Layton announced her wish to move another woman into their home against Posik's consent.
- After Posik objected, Layton moved out to live with the other woman and served Posik with a three-day eviction notice.
Procedural Posture:
- Emma Posik sued Nancy L.R. Layton in a Florida trial court to enforce the support agreement and collect on a promissory note.
- Layton defended by claiming Posik had breached the agreement first and filed a counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment that the liquidated damages clause was an unenforceable penalty.
- The trial court ruled in favor of Layton on the support agreement, finding that Layton had breached but that Posik had waived the breach, and that the liquidated damages clause was an unenforceable penalty.
- The trial court entered a judgment for Posik on the separate promissory note.
- Posik, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment regarding the unenforceability of the support agreement to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District; Layton was the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a written lifetime support agreement between two unmarried adults in a same-sex relationship an enforceable contract?
Opinions:
Majority - Harris, J.
Yes, a written lifetime support agreement between unmarried adults is an enforceable contract. The state's prohibition on same-sex marriage does not deny individuals their constitutional right to privately contract regarding their property and financial affairs. Such agreements are valid unless they are inseparably based upon illicit consideration for sexual services. Here, the agreement was for a permanent sharing of lives and included services like home care, which are valid consideration. Layton breached the agreement first by introducing a third person into the relationship and then by serving an eviction notice; Posik's subsequent refusal to perform household duties was therefore excused. The liquidated damages clause is also enforceable because Posik's damages were not readily ascertainable at the time of contracting, and the amount was reasonable in light of the lifetime support she was promised.
Concurring - Peterson, C.J.
Yes, this case simply involves whether two legally competent individuals entered into an enforceable contract for support and personal services. The parties' lifestyle or sexual relationship is irrelevant to the legal analysis. The terms of the agreement, involving one person providing household management in exchange for long-term financial support and inheritance, could have been made between any two individuals, regardless of their relationship. The decision is a recognition of the constitutional right of individuals to enter into private contracts regarding their property.
Analysis:
This case is significant for extending the principles of Marvin v. Marvin-style palimony agreements to same-sex couples in Florida, establishing that non-marital partners can create their own legally binding rights and obligations. It affirms that the right to contract is a fundamental right that applies regardless of the parties' marital status or sexual orientation. The decision provides a clear legal avenue for unmarried cohabitants to secure financial protection and define the terms of their relationship, provided the agreement is in writing and is not explicitly for sexual services. This ruling solidifies the enforceability of cohabitation agreements as a crucial tool for estate and life planning for unmarried couples.
Unlock the full brief for Posik v. Layton