## Facts

- Kurt Soderholm and Stephanie R. Kosty, college students, cohabited from September 1994 until their relationship ended in December 1995, with a brief attempted reconciliation in February 1996.
- Soderholm filed a small-claims action seeking $2,500 for expenses he asserted he paid on Kosty’s behalf during the relationship.
- He claimed, among other items, (1) $770.25 for four months of Kosty’s share of rent, (2) $647.43 for four months of car-loan payments on Kosty’s vehicle, and (3) $311 for miscellaneous items (including a payment, a car repair, and a plane ticket).
- Soderholm relied largely on a personal ledger of expenses; with one minor exception, the entries lacked Kosty’s written acknowledgment or agreement.
- It was undisputed that Soderholm regularly used Kosty’s car and that Kosty was employed and paid some expenses during the cohabitation (such as meals and groceries).
- Soderholm asserted theories of express contract, implied contract, and unjust enrichment.

## Issues

1. Whether routine expenditures made during a cohabiting romantic relationship are recoverable under implied contract or unjust enrichment absent a clear, specific agreement to repay.
2. Whether Soderholm proved an enforceable express agreement requiring Kosty to reimburse him for car payments and other miscellaneous expenditures.
3. Whether Kosty was legally obligated to reimburse Soderholm for her unpaid share of rent for specific months he covered.

## Decision

- The court awarded Soderholm $770.25 (plus court costs) for Kosty’s unpaid share of rent.
- The court dismissed all other claims, rejecting recovery based on implied contract and unjust enrichment and finding the alleged express agreements too indefinite.
- The court treated Soderholm’s ledger as largely unilateral and insufficient to prove a mutual repayment obligation for most items.

## Legal Principles

- In a cohabiting romantic relationship, reimbursement for day-to-day or relationship-related expenditures generally requires proof of a sufficiently definite agreement; vague understandings to “pay back” are not enforceable.
- Unjust enrichment is not established where the relationship’s economic benefits and contributions are reciprocal and not clearly one-sided.
- Objective, conventional obligations resembling ordinary commercial arrangements (such as a roommate or co-tenant rent share) may be enforceable when supported by definite terms and credible evidence.

## Conclusion

The court limited recovery to the unpaid rent share because it reflected an objectively verifiable, definite obligation, while denying reimbursement for other relationship-related spending due to lack of definite agreement and the reciprocal nature of the parties’ contributions during cohabitation.


Soderholm v. Kosty, 676 N.Y.S.2d 850 (N.Y. Just. Ct. 1998)