Williams v. Ormsby
131 Ohio St. 3d 427, 2012 Ohio 690 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Merely resuming a romantic relationship by moving into a home with another cannot serve as legal consideration for a contract. Promises based on the consideration of love and affection are gratuitous and not legally enforceable.
Facts:
- In May 2004, Frederick Ormsby moved into a house owned by Amber Williams.
- Ormsby subsequently paid off the remaining mortgage balance of approximately $310,000.
- In return for paying off the mortgage, Williams transferred full title to the property to Ormsby via a quitclaim deed on December 15, 2004.
- After a disagreement in March 2005, Williams moved out of the house.
- On March 24, 2005, the parties signed a written agreement to sell the house and allocate the proceeds in a specific manner.
- Two months later, the couple attempted to reconcile, but Williams refused to move back in unless Ormsby granted her a one-half interest in the property.
- On June 2, 2005, they signed a second document declaring them 'equal partners' in the house, after which Williams resumed living there.
- The relationship ended permanently in September 2007.
Procedural Posture:
- Amber Williams and Frederick Ormsby filed separate lawsuits against each other in the trial court, which were consolidated.
- Both parties filed motions for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to Ormsby, ruling that the March 2005 agreement was a valid contract but the June 2005 agreement was unenforceable for lack of consideration.
- Williams, as appellant, appealed the summary judgment ruling to the Ninth District Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that resuming a relationship can constitute sufficient consideration to support a contract.
- Ormsby, as appellant, appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio, which accepted jurisdiction to review the case.
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 resuming a romantic relationship and moving back into a shared home constitute sufficient legal consideration to support a contract granting an interest in real property?
Opinions:
Majority - Lanzinger, J.
No. Resuming a romantic relationship by cohabitating does not constitute valid consideration to support a contract. The June 2005 agreement is unenforceable because it was a gratuitous promise based on love and affection, which has long been held insufficient consideration in Ohio. A contract requires a bargained-for legal benefit or detriment, and the court found no such detriment to Williams in the June agreement; she only received a benefit, while Ormsby assumed all financial obligations for the property. Williams's argument that the agreement was a valid novation of the March contract fails because a novation must itself be a new, valid contract supported by its own consideration. Because the June agreement lacked consideration, it could not extinguish the prior, valid March agreement.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Pfeifer, J.
Yes. The June 2005 agreement was supported by valid consideration, not because of the romantic relationship, but because the parties mutually agreed to void their previous, valid March 2005 contract. The majority was distracted by the 'red herring' of love and affection. The actual consideration was the relinquishment by both parties of their respective rights and obligations under the March agreement. By voiding the first contract, which granted each party specific entitlements upon the sale of the house, they provided new consideration for the second contract. Courts do not inquire into the adequacy of consideration, only its existence, and the mutual cancellation of a prior contract is clearly valuable consideration.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the traditional contract law principle that consideration must consist of a bargained-for legal detriment or benefit, not merely an emotional or relational commitment. The court explicitly rejects the notion of valuing a romantic relationship as contractual consideration, thereby drawing a firm line against the recognition of 'palimony' claims in Ohio. The ruling solidifies the distinction between legally enforceable contracts and gratuitous promises made within a personal relationship, signaling to cohabitating partners that property agreements must be grounded in tangible, mutual obligations to be enforceable.
Unlock the full brief for Williams v. Ormsby