## Facts

- Randal G. Jones alleged he and James F. Daly began a relationship in late 1975 and orally agreed in March 1976 that Jones would move in with Daly and cohabit with him “as if” married.
- The complaint alleged an express “cohabitors agreement” under which the parties would combine efforts and earnings, share equally in property accumulated during cohabitation, and Daly would provide Jones a monthly allowance.
- Jones alleged he agreed to render services “as a lover, companion, homemaker, traveling companion, housekeeper and cook,” to hold themselves out publicly as cohabiting mates, and to abandon a material portion of his modeling career.
- In exchange, Daly allegedly promised to provide Jones financial support for life.
- Jones alleged the parties cohabited continuously from March 1976 until Daly’s death in July 1978; Jones performed his obligations; and substantial property was acquired during the relationship.
- After Daly’s death, Jones sued Daly’s executors seeking support and an equal share of property through multiple contract and equitable theories.

## Issues

1. Whether an express cohabitation agreement is enforceable when its stated consideration includes performance “as a lover” and cohabitation as if married.
2. Whether alleged nonsexual services and career sacrifice can save or be severed from an agreement the pleading frames as an integrated exchange including sexual/“lover” services.
3. Whether claims for declaratory relief, constructive trust, breach of contract, and related remedies can proceed when they depend on an illegal or void agreement.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment dismissing the action after a general demurrer was sustained without leave to amend.
- The court held the alleged agreement was invalid on its face because it was inseparably founded on illicit meretricious consideration, including promised services “as a lover.”
- The court concluded the meretricious aspect was not incidental and could not be severed from the remaining promises as pleaded.
- Because every cause of action depended on the void agreement and its promised sharing/support obligations, the complaint failed to state any legally cognizable claim.

## Legal Principles

- Courts may enforce express contracts between nonmarital cohabitants except to the extent the contract is explicitly founded on meretricious sexual services.
- A contract is void and unenforceable if its consideration rests on sexual services or an illicit meretricious relationship.
- When a pleading describes the parties’ obligations as an integrated, conjunctive bargain that includes “lover” services and cohabitation as central terms, the meretricious consideration is treated as inseparable and defeats enforcement.
- Equitable and contract-based remedies fail when they are predicated on a void agreement and no independent, lawful basis for recovery is pleaded.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed dismissal because the alleged cohabitation agreement expressly and inseparably exchanged financial support and property sharing for “lover” services and cohabitation as if married, rendering the contract void and defeating all derivative claims.


Jones v. Daly, 122 Cal. App. 3d 500 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981)