Cohabitation: Creation & Dissolution

Question 1

Cohabitation & definition of family

*SCOTUS case

Answer 1

Moore v. City of Ceveland

 * Government may not define what constitutes a family via statute.
* In this case, the city's zoning ordinances designated certain areas as "family housing", and in other provisions it defined what counts as a "family."  The city attempted to evict Moore and her relatives from "family housing" because they didn't entirely fit the city's definition.

Question 2

Cohabitation: defintion(s)

Answer 2

Established by agreement, either explicit or implied.

From this, upon dissolution the CTs may employ K-law to enforce the agreement, including an application of Quasi-Ks.

Question 3

Cohabitation that, upon dissolution, entitles parties to seek relief.

Answer 3

1) Cohabitation for X period of time
2) Valid cohabitation agreement
3) Marital-like Relationship
4) Mutual intent to live as if married.

Question 4

Forms of relief upon dissolution of cohabitation

Answer 4

1) K-law: express cohabitation agreement/K
2) K-law: Quasi-K
3) Equity Claims (regular & 4 types)
“reasonable reliance to detriment”
(a) Constructive Trust (inferred)
(b) Resulting Trust
(c) Quantum Meruit

Question 5

Meretricious Relationship (good kind)
*elements

Answer 5

1) Continuous Cohabitation
2) Sufficient Duration (STAT. or finding of fact)
3) Purpose of Relationship is Marital like (romantic, mutual support)
4) Pooling of Resources
5) Party Intent
but not practically identical to marriage
Biggest ddx’ing feature: parties KNOW they aren’t legally married.

Question 6

ALI Cohabitation recommendation

Answer 6

Heterosexuals that live together for X time.

Treat them as a M-couple upon Dissolution

Question 7

Meretricious Relationship Doctrine
(good kind)
Upon Dissolution
*def
*factors to consider to see if one exists
*rule
*property division

Answer 7

def: “A meretricious relationship is a stable relationship based on trust; marital-like; and both parties KNOW a legal Marriage Does Not Exist.”
UNLESS PROHIBITED BY STATUTE.

Elements

1) Continuous Cohabitation
2) Duration
3) Purpose of Relationship (romantic, supportive, trusting)
4) Pooling of Resources
5) Intent of the parties

Rule: If Meretricious Relationship exists, then upon ‘dissolution’ the parties are entitled to EQUITABLE CLAIMS to property.
**Does not matter if the parties would have been legally permitted to otherwise marry one another.

Property: Property acquired during the relationship is presumptively owned by both.
This presumption is rubuttable upon a showing that property was acquired w/funds that would otherwise be classified as separate property.

Question 8

Cohabitation: survivor’s rights

Answer 8

Some Jx: same as Marriage
…In those Jx: similar to “community property law” (undivided interest in ownership & use, so the other subsumes their portion at death). “Common Equity,”

Question 9

Public Policy of Cohab laws

Answer 9

==>Ought not supplant Marriage
==> Duties & RTs of legal marriage not denied/enforced merely b/c a formality was not completed.
==> Promote marriage: should bias in favor or marriage > cohab, and not give cohab the same respect or treatment afforded legal marriage.

Question 10

Forms of Relief - Cohab Dissolution

K-THEORY

Answer 10

Express, written; or
Implied in fact; or
Implied in law (Quasi-K)

Question 11

Forms of Relief - Cohab Dissolution

EQUITY THEORY

Answer 11

Restitution or Unjust Enrichment

Question 12

Forms of Relief - Cohab Dissolution

CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST

Answer 12

One party gave CONSIDERATION of time/labor to others’ acquisition of property.

Question 13

Forms of Relief - Cohab Dissolution

RESULTING TRUST

Answer 13

Parties intended for defendant to “hold” property on behalf of (“in trust for”) the plaintiff. E.g.: putting a home in one’s name, yet the other contributed $ to it.

Question 14

Forms of Relief - Cohab Dissolution

QUANTUM MERUIT

Answer 14

Seeking value of services rendered or benefits conferred to defendant.

Question 15

Palimony

Answer 15

Elements

1) Marital like relationship
2) Not necessary that they continuously cohabited (keeping multiple families)
3) Intent to commingle property
4) Held themselves out to be married w/family, friends, & colleagues on both sides
5) More than a Dating Relationship
6) Implied or Express Promise to Support

Indispensable Elements:
*****************************
MARITAL LIKE RELATIONSHIP &
PROMISE TO SUPPORT THE OTHER
**********************************************

Question 16

Elements of a Valid Cohabitation Agreement

Answer 16

1) Parties Cohabited
2) Parties in a Marital Like Relationship
3) Defendant Promised to Support Plaintiff
4) Promise in exchange for VALID consideration.

Some Jx: heterosexuals ONLY
Other Jx: allow homosexuals

Question 17

Invalid Cohabitation Agreements

Answer 17

1) Invalid if based on illicit CONSIDERATION
2) Invalid if based on an illegal relationship (e.g.: prostitution, slavery)
3) Possibly invalid if one/both parties committing adultery (essentially a VOID Cohab).
4) Cannot be based on a PROMISE to marry.