Unmarried cohabitants living together need to use caution when spending time or money on improving “shared” property. A recent opinion by the Michigan Court of Appeals, Williams v. Hartley, left one unmarried cohabitant with nothing to show for his efforts to improve the “shared” property of the couple after they separated.
Williams and Hartley became romantically involved and began to live together, under the assumption that they would marry in the future. That assumption proved costly for Williams. During their cohabitation, Williams and Hartley significantly improved the value of the property in which they lived, which was solely owned by Hartley and her father. However, when things went sour they separated and Williams sued Hartley to recover the value of his labor and the amount he spent on resources improving the property.
The Court of Appeals determined that Williams was entitled to receive nothing for his efforts. The law in Michigan provides that services rendered during a non-marital cohabitation relationship are presumed to be gratuitous. Unless the plaintiff can show that he expected payment from the defendant at the time he rendered the services and, also that the defendant expected to pay for the services, the plaintiff will not be able to overcome this presumption.
Arguments made by Williams such as unjust enrichment, gifts made in contemplation of marriage and quantum meriut were all rejected by the Court of Appeals. Courts will only enforce non-marital cohabitation agreements made with adequate and independent consideration. The Court of Appeals held to hold otherwise would be to “resurrect common-law marriage.” Unmarried co-habitants have no rights to property division in the absence of a specific contract.
This article was written by Matthew Ehrlich, Legal Clerk at Demorest Law Firm.
