## Facts

- Paul Couch and Alma Baker lived together in an intimate relationship but were not married.
- After the relationship deteriorated, a written agreement was prepared under which Couch delivered promissory notes to Baker.
- The agreement recited “love and affection” and contemplated that Couch could visit Baker at her home and continue their “friendship.”
- Baker testified the parties engaged in an illicit sexual relationship and that the notes were, in substance, payment for those meretricious relations.
- Couch claimed the stated consideration was affection and companionship and alleged Baker attempted to induce dismissal of the suit by offering to resume meretricious relations.
- Couch sued to recover the promissory notes, asserting the agreement was void as against public policy because its true consideration was immoral.

## Issues

1. Whether promissory notes transferred under an agreement whose real consideration is the continuation or resumption of an illicit sexual relationship are unenforceable as against public policy.
2. Whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury that no recovery is allowed if the notes were given in consideration of an illicit relationship.

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court held that agreements founded on meretricious consideration are void and unenforceable.
- The court concluded the jury should have been instructed that if it found the notes were given for an illicit relationship, Couch could not recover.
- The judgment for Couch was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with that rule.

## Legal Principles

- A contract is unenforceable when its real consideration is the continuation or resumption of an illicit, meretricious sexual relationship.
- Courts look to the substance of the transaction and may disregard formal recitals such as “love and affection” when evidence shows an immoral bargain.
- When enforceability turns on a disputed factual question about illegal consideration, the parties are entitled to a correct jury instruction stating the legal consequence of finding such consideration.

## Conclusion

The court treated the alleged sexual-services consideration as a complete bar to judicial relief and required that the jury be instructed to deny recovery if it found the promissory notes were given in exchange for continuation or resumption of an illicit relationship.


Baker v. Couch, 221 P. 1089 (Colo. 1924)