Wilcox v. Trautz
427 Mass. 326, 693 N.E.2d 141, 1998 Mass. LEXIS 176 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Unmarried cohabitants may lawfully contract concerning property, financial, and other matters relevant to their relationship, and such a contract is valid under ordinary contract law unless sexual services constitute the only or dominant consideration for the agreement, or enforcement is denied on some other public policy ground.
Facts:
- In 1967, the plaintiff, then 22, and the defendant, then 25, began living together as an unmarried couple in an apartment, with the defendant earning more than the plaintiff.
- In 1973, they moved into a house purchased by the defendant in Rockland, and in 1980, after selling the Rockland property, they moved to another house he purchased in Halifax; both properties were titled solely in the defendant's name.
- Between 1973 and 1992, the plaintiff contributed $25 per week to household expenses, performed all food and clothes shopping (paying from her earnings), did all cooking, cleaning, laundry, and entertained friends and family.
- The plaintiff also contributed some of her income to home improvements (ceramic flooring, carpeting, patio furniture, deck) and shared costs of appliances, which enabled the defendant to use his funds to purchase and maintain real estate and an airplane.
- In March 1989, the plaintiff became involved in another relationship, prompting the defendant to seek legal advice and have his attorney draft an agreement concerning their respective rights to assets.
- The defendant presented the agreement to the plaintiff, stating that if she did not sign it, their relationship would end and she would have to move out, and advised her to seek legal advice (which she chose not to do).
- A few days later, the parties signed the agreement before a notary public; the agreement provided that the plaintiff would vacate the Halifax residence within thirty days if requested by the defendant.
- At the time of signing, the defendant owned significant assets (Halifax property, airplane, bank accounts, IRAs, Maine real estate share), while the plaintiff had a small bank account, a Maine real estate share, furniture, clothing, and jewelry; both parties were aware of each other's financial status.
- In 1992, when the plaintiff became involved in another relationship, the defendant gave her thirty days' notice to leave the Halifax house, but she refused and moved into another bedroom where she resided until trial.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff brought an action in the Probate and Family Court seeking a declaration that a written agreement was invalid and unenforceable, an injunction preventing transfer of the house, and a constructive trust or damages on theories of implied promise or quantum meruit.
- A judge of the Probate and Family Court conducted a bifurcated trial.
- The judge first concluded that the parties’ written agreement was invalid and should not be enforced.
- The judge then concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover under a constructive trust theory or an implied contract theory, but awarded her approximately $30,000 in damages on her quantum meruit claim to prevent unjust enrichment.
- The defendant appealed from the final judgment.
- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts transferred the case to itself on its own motion.
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 written agreement between unmarried cohabitants concerning property and financial matters during their relationship violate public policy and thus become unenforceable, merely because the parties were in a sexual relationship or contemplated continued cohabitation?
Opinions:
Majority - Greaney, J.
No, a written agreement between unmarried cohabitants concerning property and financial matters does not violate public policy and is enforceable, unless sexual services constitute the only or dominant consideration. The court holds that unmarried cohabitants may lawfully contract concerning property, financial, and other matters relevant to their relationship, and such a contract is subject to the rules of ordinary contract law. The court recognized that social mores regarding cohabitation have dramatically changed, and there is a benefit to encouraging unmarried cohabitants to enter into written agreements to define their rights, especially since Massachusetts does not recognize common law marriage or extend marital rights to unmarried couples. Overruling prior decisions that largely precluded enforcement of agreements made in consideration of cohabitation, the court adopted the view that such an agreement is unenforceable only if it explicitly and inseparably is founded on sexual relations, or if enforcement is against other public policy grounds. This case clarifies that the mere contemplation of a nonmarital relationship does not invalidate the agreement. The court specifically rejected the Probate and Family Court's application of the 'fair and reasonable' standard typically applied to antenuptial agreements, stating that an agreement between unmarried parties is governed by ordinary contract law and a court should not inquire into its fairness or reasonableness any more than with contracts generally. The court found no evidence that the sole or dominant purpose of the agreement was to secure the plaintiff's sexual fidelity; rather, the agreement itself stated that sexual services were not consideration and that its intent was to define rights pertaining to services, earnings, and accumulated property. The court emphasized that the parties were adults with the capacity to contract, understood each other's financial status, and the plaintiff was advised to seek legal counsel but chose not to. The court reiterated that its decision does not derogate from the clear distinction between the legal rights of married and unmarried cohabitants, nor does it recognize common law marriage or permit the incidents of the marital relationship to attach to cohabitation without marriage.
Analysis:
This landmark decision fundamentally shifts how Massachusetts courts view contracts between unmarried cohabitants, moving away from antiquated public policy concerns and aligning with modern societal norms. It provides clarity and legal certainty for individuals choosing to cohabit without marriage, empowering them to define their financial and property rights through contract. However, the ruling strictly maintains the legal distinction between married and unmarried couples, emphasizing that such agreements are not a backdoor to marital rights and do not diminish the state's interest in the institution of marriage. Future cases will likely scrutinize the 'only or dominant consideration' for sexual services and other public policy exceptions (e.g., preventing one party from becoming a public charge) when evaluating the enforceability of cohabitation agreements.
