Common Law Marriage: Meretricious Relationships and Breaking up from a Fiancé

A “meretricious relationship” is the legal term for unmarried cohabitation, or what is often called a “common-law marriage” or a “committed intimate relationship”. These relationships are similar to marriage in that they include such things as living together, sharing financial and other resources, raising children, taking care of each other, and presenting to the general public as a family unit.

While a meretricious relationship can mirror the commitments and behaviors of marriage, in most states this relationship is not treated the same as legal marriage. Many people who are in this relationship mistakenly believe that they have the same legal status and rights as a married couple, but this may not be the case. Michigan does not recognize common-law marriages, and has prohibited common-law marriage since 1957.

Therefore, what are you rights when separating from a fiancé? The following lays out the history and current rights to property and children when you are a separating fiancé and/or girlfriend/boyfriend.

Historical Context and Legal Precedents

• Michigan’s 1957 prohibition on common-law marriage means that unmarried people who are cohabiting do not have the same rights as do married couples. They especially do not have the same property rights.
• However, the Michigan Supreme Court, in the case of Burns v Stevens, 236 Mich 447 (1926), established that courts could consider property disputes between unmarried partners if the agreements were not based on illegal or fraudulent activities-that is, that simply because the parties were not married this did not void any contracts between them.
• In 1973, the Michigan Court of Appeals directly addressed the rights of unmarried cohabiting couples in the case Tyranski v Piggins. The court allowed for property claims if there was an express agreement and independent consideration, such as financial contributions or services; regardless of the meretricious relationship not being legal, “[that] does not render all agreements between the parties illegal.” Tyranski, 44 Mich App 570, 573-74 )1973).

Influential Cases and Developments

• Marvin v Marvin, 557 P2d 106 (Cal, 1976), a case in the California Supreme Court, set a precedent for the whole country by allowing nonmarital partners to claim property rights based on agreements not solely tied to sexual services. In other words, if the claim for property rights is based on contributions from the party claiming these rights other than simply being a paramour: if the claim is based on such activities as keeping house, pooling finances, maintaining a home together, and so on, the claim could be considered.
• Michigan’s Roznowski v Bozyk case recognized implied contracts in meretricious relationships for compensation based on services rendered, provided there was an expectation of payment. Roznowski, 73 Mich App 405, 406-07; 251 NW2d 606 (1977).
• The Michigan Court of Appeals, in Carnes v Sheldon, confirmed that Michigan does not recognize common-law marriage and thus would not extend the remedies given by the California Supreme Court in the Marvin. However, the court stated that it would recognize claims with express agreements and independent consideration, stating: “This state will not enforce contracts made in consideration of meretricious relationships; however, this Court has recognized that the existence of a meretricious relationship does not render all agreements between the parties illegal.” Carnes, 109 Mich App 204, 211 (1981).

Recent Case Law

• Hierholzer v Sardy, 128 Mich App 259, 261-62 (1983), and Featherston v Steinhoff, 226 Mich App 584, 585-86 (1997), reinforced the need for express agreements or implied contracts with independent consideration for property claims.
• Deschane v Klug, 344 Mich App 744, 748 (2022), highlighted the difficulty of claiming compensation without an express agreement or evidence of expected payment.

Conclusion

• Michigan courts will enforce agreements made during meretricious relationships if there is proof of independent consideration, either expressed or implied in fact.
• Services rendered during meretricious relationships are presumed gratuitous, that is free, unless evidence shows an expectation of compensation.
• Written agreements with independent consideration are recommended for unmarried cohabiting partners.

Recommendations for Unmarried Couples

If you are a fiancé or a partner in a meretricious relationship—unmarried but sharing such basics as a home, household chores, financial responsibilities, decision making, children, etc., in short, living together as a family unit—you should consider creating a legal framework for your relationship. You would be advised to create Domestic Relationship Agreements that will outline each partner’s contributions and proposed asset division if that should become necessary. These Agreements can greatly help avoid legal uncertainties. A partnership agreement could spell out such things as who pays which bills, how rent is shared, who pays the car payment and insurance, and even who is responsible for which chores. Then, if you should end up separating, each partner has a legal basis and protection relative to property, pets and children.

If you are in a common-law marriage or any meretricious relationship, and would like information on your rights, on what “consideration” would entail, or in drafting appropriate Agreements, the attorneys at Van Den Heuvel Law Office have extensive experience that you can rely on for any questions or concerns you may have. Contact the Van Den Heuvel Law Office to schedule an appointment today.