Source: http://fl.bna.com/fl/19980505/07621.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 14:13:08+00:00

Document:
Plymouth. March 5, 1998. - April 21, 1998.
Court Department on August 21, 1992.
implied promise or quantum meruit.
of approximately $30,000 on her quantum meruit claim.
disposes of the damages claim in the defendant's favor.
Rockland and the Halifax properties were in the defendant's name only.
friends and family in the parties' home.
oven, a refrigerator, and an air conditioner.
attorney to draft the agreement.
later, the parties signed the agreement before a notary public.
was forced or coerced into signing the agreement.
other's financial status prior to the execution of the agreement.
bedroom where she resided until the time of trial.
v. Richmond, 369 Mass. 47, 51 (1975).
that might have the effect of dividing property between unmarried parties.
Courts in other jurisdictions have concluded, as we did in Margolies v.
inseparably is founded on sexual relations. Kozlowski v. Kozlowski, 80 N.J.
24 (Tex. Ct. App. 1982); Kinnison v. Kinnison, 627 P.2d 594 (Wyo. 1981).
1325 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980) (contractual and equitable remedies); Collins v.
equitable remedies); Watts v. Watts, 137 Wis. 2d 506 (1987), S.C., 152 Wis.
toward meeting standard, but is not entitled to presumption); Feliciano v.
supra. We do not do so now.
plaintiff, coupled with her claim that he could not just "throw her out,"
property and furnishings and other matters that may be contained herein."
to an antenuptial agreement. See generally Osborne v. Osborne, 384 Mass.
coerced to sign the agreement.
quantum meruit claim. See J.A. Sullivan Corp. v. Commonwealth, 397 Mass.
Bradford v. Richards, 11 Mass. App. Ct. 595, 598 (1981).
claim in the defendant's favor.
during the relationship, "what's mine is mine and what's yours is yours."
the exception of mortgage or rent payments, shall be deemed a loan.
Fam. L.Q. 77, 77 n.1 (1990).
nonmarital partner in the absence of an express contract.
parties to the agreement does not become a public charge. See O'Brien v.
written agreement which is contrary to the terms of this agreement."
right of custody of minor child is not in best interest of child); Knox v.
cohabitation agreements, see Perry, supra at 88-93.

References: v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.