Soderholm v. Kosty
676 N.Y.S.2d 850, 177 Misc. 2d 403, 1998 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 291 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An express contract between unmarried cohabitants is enforceable, but courts will not recognize implied contracts or claims of unjust enrichment for expenses incurred during the relationship, as these are presumed to be part of the give-and-take of a personal, non-contractual living arrangement.
Facts:
- Plaintiff Soderholm and Defendant Kosty, both college students, began living together in September 1994 and entered into a romantic and sexual relationship.
- During their cohabitation, which lasted until December 1995, Soderholm paid for Kosty's share of the rent for four months, made four of her car payments, and paid for a car repair bill and a plane ticket for her.
- Soderholm kept personal, unverified notes of these expenditures.
- Kosty was a co-lessee on the apartment leases with Soderholm.
- Throughout the relationship, Kosty also paid for various items such as dinners, groceries, movies, and clothing for Soderholm.
- Soderholm often had use of Kosty's vehicle, including for a trip to North Carolina for a job interview.
- When Soderholm would ask for repayment, Kosty would sometimes vaguely state that she would pay him back 'when she got it'.
- The relationship ended, and Soderholm sought reimbursement for the money he had spent.
Procedural Posture:
- Soderholm (Plaintiff) filed a small claims action against Kosty (Defendant) in the City Court of Corning, the court of first instance.
- The claim, filed on April 16, 1998, sought $2,500 in restitution for expenditures made during their cohabitation.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are financial contributions made by one partner to another during a non-marital cohabiting relationship legally recoverable after the relationship ends under theories of implied contract, unjust enrichment, or express contract?
Opinions:
Majority - David M. Brockway, J.
No, financial contributions are not legally recoverable under theories of implied contract or unjust enrichment, and are only recoverable under an express contract if it is clear, specific, and demonstrates a meeting of the minds. The court held that while express agreements between unmarried cohabitants are enforceable, implied contracts for services or expenses rendered out of affection are against New York's public policy. The court dismissed the implied contract claim, stating it would require the court to improperly 'sort out the intentions of the parties' in a private, non-contractual relationship. The unjust enrichment claim also failed because, given the mutual 'give and take' of the relationship (e.g., plaintiff's use of defendant's car, defendant's purchase of food and clothes), it could not be said that the defendant was unequivocally enriched at the plaintiff's expense in a way that 'equity and good conscience' would require repayment. However, the court found an enforceable obligation for the rent payments because Kosty was a co-lessee on the lease, which sufficiently spelled out her intent to be bound for her share of the cost. The remaining claims for car payments and other expenses were dismissed as they were based on vague promises that were too ambiguous to form an enforceable contract.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces New York's strict legal distinction between marital and non-marital relationships, refusing to extend quasi-marital financial rights to unmarried cohabitants. The ruling establishes a high evidentiary bar for recovering funds after a non-marital breakup, requiring proof of a clear, express contract rather than relying on the parties' conduct. It effectively warns cohabiting partners that if they expect reimbursement for significant financial contributions, they must create a formal, unambiguous agreement. This precedent protects courts from becoming entangled in the complex and emotionally charged financial aftermath of informal relationships, forcing parties to clarify their financial intentions upfront.
