## Facts

- Two unmarried adults cohabited for about fourteen years, held themselves out as spouses, and sometimes filed joint tax returns.
- At the start of the relationship, neither owned real property and they owned little personal property.
- During cohabitation, they acquired three parcels of real estate, multiple vehicles, a mobile home, and other personal property.
- Title to the acquired property was placed in both names in forms such as joint tenancy with right of survivorship and “husband and wife.”
- One partner provided most financial support through work as a mechanic and operation of an auto repair shop located on jointly acquired land.
- The other partner primarily performed household labor (cooking, cleaning, laundry, yardwork), paid household bills from a joint checking account, and occasionally performed billing/bookkeeping for the shop; she also ran a small photography business with minimal net income.
- After separation, the homemaking partner filed a statutory partition action seeking a one-half interest in the jointly acquired assets.

## Issues

1. Whether an implied contract existed between unmarried cohabitants to jointly acquire and share ownership of property obtained during their relationship.
2. Whether household and related services constitute sufficient, non-meretricious consideration to support enforcement of such an implied agreement and an equal partition.
3. Whether a resulting-trust theory based on unequal monetary contributions should override joint title and evidence of a sharing agreement.

## Decision

- The Arizona Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the trial court’s judgment.
- The Court held the evidence supported an implied agreement to jointly acquire and own property accumulated during cohabitation.
- The Court held homemaking and related services were adequate consideration for the implied agreement and were separable from any sexual relationship.
- The Court rejected imposing a resulting trust based solely on one party’s greater cash contributions where joint titling and conduct showed an intent to share.

## Legal Principles

- Unmarried cohabitants may form enforceable express or implied agreements concerning property, if the bargain is not founded on meretricious consideration.
- An implied contract may be inferred from objective conduct, including joint titling, pooling of efforts, and consistent treatment of property as shared.
- Exchange of unlike services—financial support for homemaking and related services—can be valid consideration; domestic labor has legal value in property accumulation.
- Resulting-trust presumptions tied to purchase-money disparity do not control when joint title and surrounding conduct establish a mutual agreement to share ownership.

## Conclusion

The court enforced an implied cohabitation agreement to share property acquired during the relationship, holding that homemaking and related services supplied valid, non-meretricious consideration and supporting an equal partition of jointly acquired assets.


Carroll v. Lee, 712 P.2d 923 (Ariz. 1986)