## Facts

- Rose Marie Cook and Donald Cook began cohabiting in 1969, intending to marry after Donald’s divorce became final, but they never married.
- They lived together in Tucson until 1981 and held themselves out in the community as husband and wife.
- During the relationship, both worked and pooled earnings into joint bank accounts.
- They acquired a residence, two automobiles, and stock, titled as joint tenants with right of survivorship, and used pooled income for common expenses.
- After Rose left in 1981, she received one car and a small amount of cash; Donald retained the remaining jointly acquired assets.
- Rose sued alleging an implied agreement (described as an implied partnership) to combine efforts and resources and share equally in property accumulated during cohabitation, seeking an accounting and division.

## Issues

1. What was the nature and content of any agreement between the parties concerning pooled resources and accumulated property?
2. Are agreements between nonmarital cohabitants concerning property enforceable when made and performed during cohabitation?
3. Is such an agreement unenforceable because it was made in contemplation of a marriage that did not occur?

## Decision

- The Arizona Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and remanded.
- The Court held that agreements between unmarried cohabitants about property are not automatically unenforceable.
- The Court held that an agreement is not invalid merely because it was made in contemplation of an eventual marriage that did not occur.
- The case was remanded for the trial court to determine, as a factual matter, whether an express or implied agreement existed and, if so, to grant relief consistent with ordinary contract and related doctrines.

## Legal Principles

- Unmarried cohabitants may contract regarding property and financial affairs; such agreements are enforceable under ordinary contract principles if supported by lawful consideration.
- An agreement is unenforceable to the extent it is supported solely by meretricious (sexual) services; independent consideration may include contributions of money, labor, or services related to property or finances.
- Courts may enforce valid agreements and related claims (including accounting-type remedies) without conferring statutory marital rights or creating a quasi-marital status.
- The fact that parties contemplated marriage does not, by itself, void an otherwise lawful agreement concerning property allocation.

## Conclusion

The Arizona Supreme Court held that property-sharing agreements between nonmarital cohabitants are enforceable when supported by lawful consideration independent of sexual services, and that contemplated-but-unconsummated marriage does not alone defeat enforceability; the case was remanded for factual findings on any agreement and appropriate relief.


Cook v. Cook, 691 P.2d 664 (Ariz. 1984)