## Facts

- Frances Morone and Frank Morone were unmarried cohabitants who lived together for decades and had two children.
- Frances alleged they held themselves out as husband and wife since 1952 and that Frank acknowledged paternity of the children.
- Frances claimed she performed domestic duties and business services at Frank’s request, expecting compensation, and that Frank accepted the services knowing that expectation.
- Frances alleged they filed joint tax returns for several years, suggesting shared economic interests.
- Frances sued for $250,000 under two theories:
  - Implied contract based on the rendering and acceptance of domestic and business services during cohabitation.
  - Express oral agreement from 1952 characterized as a partnership: Frances would perform domestic services, Frank would manage business matters, and profits would be shared equally.
- The trial court dismissed the complaint; the Appellate Division affirmed.
- On appeal, the court treated the case as a motion to dismiss, accepting pleaded facts as true and asking only whether any cognizable legal theory was stated.

## Issues

1. Whether New York recognizes an implied contract between unmarried cohabitants regarding earnings and assets based solely on cohabitation and domestic services.
2. Whether an express agreement between unmarried cohabitants concerning property, earnings, or profit sharing is enforceable, and if so, under what limits.

## Decision

- The court modified the order to dismiss only the implied-contract cause of action and otherwise affirmed, with costs to Frances.
- The court held that no contract will be implied from the mere fact of nonmarital cohabitation and the performance of domestic services; the implied-contract claim was properly dismissed.
- The court held that an express agreement between unmarried cohabitants is enforceable under ordinary contract principles, so long as it is not founded solely on sexual services; the express-contract (partnership) claim stated a claim and should not have been dismissed.

## Legal Principles

- New York will not infer contractual or property rights between unmarried cohabitants from cohabitation plus the rendition and acceptance of domestic (“housewifely”) services.
- Recognizing broad implied obligations based on cohabitation is inconsistent with New York’s legislative policy abolishing common-law marriage.
- Express agreements between unmarried persons living together are enforceable as though the parties were not cohabiting.
- No special rule requires such an agreement to be in writing merely because the relationship was long-term, and domestic or personal services are not presumptively gratuitous.
- An express agreement is unenforceable to the extent its consideration is solely sexual services.

## Conclusion

The court drew a sharp distinction between implied and express arrangements among unmarried cohabitants: it refused to create implied contractual rights from cohabitation and domestic services, but allowed enforcement of a clearly alleged express agreement to share earnings or profits, subject to the limitation that the bargain cannot rest solely on sexual services.


Morone v. Morone, 50 N.Y.2d 481, 413 N.E.2d 1154 (N.Y. 1980)