Opinion ID: 201590
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Palimony Contract

Text: 31 Rhode Island has never recognized a cause of action for palimony. The term palimony originated out of the media coverage of the California case Marvin v. Marvin, 18 Cal.3d 660, 134 Cal.Rptr. 815, 557 P.2d 106, 112 (1976), in which the Supreme Court of California awarded future support to a nonmarital partner in the absence of an express contract. Palimony is [a] court's award of post-relationship support or compensation for services, money, and goods contributed during a long-term nonmarital relationship, esp[ecially] where a common-law marriage cannot be established. Black's Law Dictionary 1142 (8th ed.2004). Although Rhode Island recognizes common-law marriage, it has not recognized palimony claims. 32 Prior to cases like Marvin v. Marvin, all contracts between parties to an illicit cohabitation arrangement were considered to be made in consideration of their sexual relationship, and therefore courts found the contracts void as against public policy and refused to enforce them. However, as society has grown more accepting of nonmarital cohabitation relationships, courts in some states have grown more willing to enforce contracts made between parties to such relationships. In Marvin, the Supreme Court of California wrote that [t]he mores of the society have indeed changed so radically in regard to cohabitation that we cannot impose a standard based on alleged moral considerations that have apparently been so widely abandoned by so many. 134 Cal.Rptr. 815, 557 P.2d at 122. However, not every state has jumped on the palimony bandwagon, and Rhode Island has not. 33 Norton argues that times are changing and attempts to show that Rhode Island law is moving in lock-step with the changes that the nearby states of Connecticut, Massachusetts and New Jersey recently made when they began enforcing contracts and agreements between unmarried cohabitants. 6 Norton incorrectly cites Doe v. Burkland, 808 A.2d 1090 (R.I.2002), for the proposition that the Rhode Island Supreme Court has recognized a cause of action for palimony. The Rhode Island court did no such thing. In Burkland, the Rhode Island court simply held that [t]he mere existence of a sexual relationship between two parties does not impair their right to contract with each other for consideration independent of the relationship. Id. at 1094 (citing Marvin, 134 Cal.Rptr. 815, 557 P.2d at 112). In Burkland, following the end of a relationship in which two men had lived together as domestic partners for nine years, one of the former partners sued the other for harassment. The defendant then counterclaimed that the plaintiff had breached an oral agreement to share any property that either party had acquired individually during their relationship. [T]he counterclaimant alleged that he agreed to `devote his skills, effort, labors and earnings' to assist plaintiff in his career, and that he provided homemaking services, business consulting, and counseling to plaintiff in consideration for the alleged property-sharing agreement. Burkland, 808 A.2d at 1093. The Rhode Island Supreme Court held that if the plaintiff had actually acquired property with the help of the legitimate services of the defendant under their alleged property-sharing arrangement, then the defendant might be entitled to relief. Id. at 1095. 34 We agree with the district court that Burkland is clearly inapposite in this case. Norton did not have a property sharing agreement with Hoyt. Norton seeks enforcement of a promise for future support payments, which is palimony and not a valid cause of action in Rhode Island. 35 Unfortunately for Norton, who waited twenty-three years for an adulterer to finally leave his wife for good so that they could get married and live happily ever after, her happy ending never came to pass. Hoyt instead decided to end the relationship with Norton, having never left his wife. While society does not favor the actions taken by Hoyt in his relationships, Rhode Island law does not provide Norton with a cause of action for palimony arising out of her nonmarital relationship with Hoyt, nor is she able to succeed in a promissory estoppel claim because she has failed to meet the first two, if not all three of the elements of said claim. 36