Relationship Agreements: Cohabitation & Partnership FAQ

A cohabitation agreement is a legally binding contract between unmarried partners who live together, establishing their respective rights and obligations regarding property, finances, and other aspects of their relationship. Unlike married couples who have statutory protections governing property division and support, unmarried cohabitants have no automatic legal rights to each other's property or income.

A cohabitation agreement fills this gap by clearly defining each partner's property rights, financial responsibilities, and what happens if the relationship ends. These agreements typically address:

• Property ownership and division
• Debt allocation
• Expense sharing
• Inheritance rights
• Procedures for separation

In California, cohabitation agreements are enforceable as long as they are not based solely on the provision of sexual services (which would render them void as contrary to public policy). The landmark case Marvin v. Marvin established that unmarried couples can enter into express or implied contracts regarding property and support rights. Having a written cohabitation agreement prevents costly litigation by establishing clear expectations upfront.

Palimony is a colloquial term (not a legal term of art) referring to support payments made to a former unmarried partner after the end of a cohabiting relationship. Unlike alimony, which is statutorily mandated support between former spouses upon divorce, palimony has no automatic legal basis and must arise from an express or implied contract between the parties.

The term originated from the famous Marvin v. Marvin case in 1976, where the California Supreme Court recognized that unmarried cohabitants could have enforceable agreements for property division and support. To obtain palimony, the claiming party must prove either:

• An express agreement (written or oral) to provide support, or
• An implied agreement based on the parties' conduct

California courts will enforce such agreements as long as sexual services are not the sole consideration. However, proving an implied palimony agreement is notoriously difficult, requiring substantial evidence of the parties' intent and conduct. Unlike alimony, palimony claims are governed by contract law rather than family law statutes, meaning factors like length of relationship and lifestyle during cohabitation are evaluated differently.

Marvin v. Marvin (1976) 18 Cal.3d 660 is the landmark California Supreme Court decision that revolutionized the legal treatment of unmarried cohabitants' property rights. The case arose when Michelle Triola Marvin sued actor Lee Marvin after their seven-year cohabiting relationship ended, claiming they had an agreement to share property and that she was entitled to support.

The California Supreme Court's groundbreaking ruling established several key principles:

• Unmarried couples can enter into express contracts regarding their earnings and property acquired during cohabitation
• These contracts can be oral or written and will be enforced unless sexual services form the only consideration
• Courts can examine the conduct of the parties to determine whether an implied contract exists
• Even absent an express or implied contract, courts can apply equitable remedies such as constructive trust, resulting trust, or quantum meruit to prevent unjust enrichment

This decision fundamentally changed the legal landscape by recognizing that unmarried partners have contract rights similar to business partners, though they lack the statutory protections afforded to married couples.

In California, unmarried couples have no automatic statutory property rights equivalent to the community property system that governs married couples. Property acquired during cohabitation is generally owned by whichever partner holds title or paid for the asset. However, unmarried partners can establish property rights through several mechanisms:

Express Agreements: Written or oral agreements can specify how property will be owned and divided. Under Marvin v. Marvin, courts will enforce these agreements if they are not based solely on sexual services.

Implied Agreements: These can arise from the parties' conduct, though proving such agreements requires substantial evidence of mutual intent.

Equitable Doctrines:

• Constructive trust can be imposed if one partner was unjustly enriched through the other's contributions
• Resulting trust may arise when one partner pays for property but title is held by the other
• Quantum meruit allows recovery for the reasonable value of services rendered

Title: Joint tenancy or tenancy in common title creates specific ownership rights regardless of relationship status.

To protect property rights, unmarried couples should execute written cohabitation agreements specifying ownership of existing and future assets.

A domestic partnership in California is a legally recognized relationship status that provides many of the same rights and responsibilities as marriage at the state level. California's Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act (Family Code Sections 297-299.6) was expanded in 2005 to grant registered domestic partners virtually all the same state-level rights as married couples, including:

• Community property rights
• Mutual support obligations
• Hospital visitation rights
• Inheritance rights
• Right to dissolution proceedings in family court

To register, partners must share a common residence, agree to be jointly responsible for basic living expenses, not be married or in another domestic partnership, be at least 18 years old, and either be same-sex couples or opposite-sex couples where one partner is over 62.

Key differences from marriage include:

• Domestic partnerships are not recognized federally for immigration, Social Security, or federal tax purposes
• Not all states recognize California domestic partnerships
• Termination procedures differ slightly
• Symbolic and social recognition differs

BDSM or kink relationship contracts present complex legal enforceability issues and are generally not enforceable as traditional contracts in courts. From a contract law perspective, these agreements face several obstacles:

• Contracts cannot enforce provisions requiring illegal acts (assault laws may apply regardless of consent in some jurisdictions)
• Sexual or intimate services cannot be the sole consideration for a contract under Marvin v. Marvin
• Courts are reluctant to enforce personal service contracts requiring specific performance
• Public policy considerations may render certain provisions unenforceable

However, these agreements serve important non-legal functions within the BDSM community. They document negotiated consent between parties, establish boundaries and safe words, clarify expectations and roles, and provide evidence of informed consent if legal issues arise.

While courts won't specifically enforce a "slave contract" or require someone to perform agreed-upon acts, the existence of detailed written negotiations can be valuable evidence of consent in criminal proceedings. Any provisions regarding property, finances, or living arrangements would be evaluated separately under general contract principles.

Partners seeking legal protection should separate their relationship dynamics documents from legally enforceable cohabitation or property agreements.

To create an enforceable cohabitation agreement in California, several key elements and provisions should be included:

Basic Requirements: The agreement must demonstrate mutual assent with clear identification of both parties and statements that each enters the agreement voluntarily. Include recitals establishing the nature of the relationship (not based solely on sexual services) and the purpose of the agreement.

Property Provisions:

• Ownership of property each partner brings into the relationship
• How property acquired during cohabitation will be owned (separate, joint, or proportional to contribution)
• How titled property will be treated
• Procedures for property division upon separation

Financial Provisions:

• Income treatment (kept separate or pooled)
• Responsibility for household expenses
• Debt allocation and responsibility
• Any support obligations during or after the relationship

Additional Enforceable Provisions: Dispute resolution mechanisms (mediation or arbitration), choice of law, amendment procedures, and severability clauses. Both parties should sign the agreement, ideally with notarization. Each partner should have independent legal counsel review the agreement, and full financial disclosure should be exchanged.

Avoid provisions regarding sexual conduct or child custody, as these are unenforceable.

In California, unmarried partners have no automatic inheritance rights under intestate succession laws. When someone dies without a will, California Probate Code Sections 6401-6402 dictate that property passes to surviving spouses or registered domestic partners, then to children, parents, siblings, and more distant relatives. Unmarried cohabitants are not included in this statutory scheme regardless of the length of the relationship.

This means that without proper estate planning, a deceased partner's property could pass entirely to distant relatives rather than a long-term unmarried partner who shared their life.

To ensure inheritance rights, unmarried couples should take proactive steps:

• Execute wills specifically naming each other as beneficiaries
• Create revocable living trusts transferring assets upon death
• Designate each other as beneficiaries on life insurance, retirement accounts, and payable-on-death accounts
• Hold property in joint tenancy with right of survivorship
• Register as domestic partners for inheritance rights equivalent to spouses

Additionally, healthcare directives and powers of attorney should be established since unmarried partners have no automatic authority to make medical or financial decisions. Failure to plan can result in the surviving partner losing the shared home and assets to the deceased partner's legal heirs.

When unmarried couples separate without a cohabitation agreement, California courts do not apply community property principles and instead rely on traditional property and contract law. The starting point is that each partner owns the property in their name. However, courts can apply various legal theories to achieve equitable results:

Express Contract: If there was an oral or written agreement about property sharing, courts will enforce it per Marvin v. Marvin.

Implied Contract: Can be found from the parties' conduct demonstrating an agreement to share property, though proving this is challenging.

Equitable Remedies:

• Constructive trust: Imposed when one partner would be unjustly enriched by retaining property contributed to by the other
• Resulting trust: Arises when one partner pays for property titled in the other's name
• Quantum meruit: Allows recovery for the reasonable value of services rendered (beyond ordinary domestic services)

Courts examine factors like financial contributions to property acquisition, whose income paid the mortgage or expenses, improvements made by either party, and whether there was an expectation of sharing. The burden of proof lies with the partner claiming an interest in the other's titled property. Litigation is expensive and outcomes uncertain, which is why written cohabitation agreements are strongly recommended.

Palimony claims in California are governed by contract law statutes of limitations, not family law timelines. The applicable statute of limitations depends on whether the agreement was written or oral:

• Written contracts: California Code of Civil Procedure Section 337 provides a four-year statute of limitations from the date of breach
• Oral contracts: Section 339 provides a two-year statute of limitations

Determining when the statute begins to run can be complex. Generally, the limitations period begins when the contract is breached, which typically occurs when the relationship ends and the alleged support or property-sharing obligation is not honored. However:

• If there was an ongoing obligation that was partially performed, the statute may run from each missed payment
• The discovery rule may delay accrual if the plaintiff did not know and could not reasonably have discovered the breach
• If the parties continued some form of relationship or the defendant made partial payments or promises to pay, doctrines of equitable tolling or estoppel might apply

Given these complexities and the relatively short two-year window for oral agreements, partners believing they have palimony claims should consult an attorney promptly after separation to preserve their rights.