Morone v. Morone,
413 N.E.2d 1154 (1980).


Procedure: The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (New York) entered an order that affirmed the granting of defendant cohabitant male's motion to dismiss the plaintiff cohabitant female's complaint, which sought compensation for services rendered as the male's unmarried cohabitant on implied contract and partnership bases, on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action. The female appealed.

Facts: Ms. Morone (P) and Mr. Morone (D) lived together from 1952 to 1975 without marrying. When the relationship ended in 1975, P brought suit alleging that since the inception of their long-term relationship, she had performed do-mestic duties and business services at the request of D, who accepted those services knowing she expected compensation. She requested the court to imply in fact a contract as to earnings and assets. P also asked the court to enforce an oral contract entered into by the parties in 1952, whereby P would furnish domestic services and D would manage the business and would support P and divide all profits between them. The court dismissed the complaint. P appeals.

Issues:
1)May a court enforce an express contract as to earnings and assets between an unmarried couple living together?

2)May a contract as to earnings and assets be implied in fact from the rela-tionship of an unmarried couple living together?


HOLDING
a) Yes. b) No. Judgment affirmed in part; reversed in part. Unmarried couples living together may freely contract with each other as to property and personal services so long as illicit sexual relations are not part of the consideration.
A contract that is implied in fact from the relationship of an unmarried couple living together is unenforceable and against public policy. It is at the time that the relationship ends that this suit, alleging an implied contract based on the rendition and acceptance of services, is brought. Absent an express contract there is no adequate frame of reference against upon illicit consideration for sexual services. The agreement must also be in writing. Although no legal rights or obligations flow from the nonmarital relationship, the parties may exercise their constitutional private property and contract rights. There is no reason to distinguish between homosexual or heterosexual cohabitating couples. Although an agreement may be more favorable to one party, the agreement will be enforced unless fraud or overreaching is found. The freedom to contract includes the right to enter a bad bargain.

Concurrence: This case merely involves a lifetime personal services contract, which the parties are allowed to enter into. Neither the contract nor the testimony reflects that the reason for the agreement was payment for sexual cohabitation or a same-sex marriage, both of which are not recognized in Florida.