## Facts

- Carol A. Wilcox and John G. Trautz, unmarried, lived together beginning in 1967 and cohabited for roughly twenty-five years.
- They moved into homes purchased and titled solely in Trautz’s name, including a Halifax residence acquired in 1980 where they lived until their separation.
- Wilcox contributed $25 per week from 1973 to 1992 toward general household expenses; Trautz paid the mortgage and taxes.
- After relationship difficulties in the mid-1980s, Trautz had counsel draft a written cohabitation/property agreement.
- The agreement provided that each party’s earnings and property would remain separate and that Wilcox’s payments relating to the Halifax property would be treated as rent or household-expense contributions, not as creating any ownership interest.
- The agreement stated Wilcox would vacate the home within 30 days of Trautz’s request.
- Trautz told Wilcox the relationship would end and she would have to move out if she did not sign; he advised her to seek counsel, but she did not; both parties signed.
- After the relationship ended, Wilcox refused to leave when requested and sued to invalidate the agreement and obtain property or monetary relief.

## Issues

1. Whether a written agreement between unmarried cohabitants allocating property and financial rights is enforceable under ordinary contract principles, or void as against public policy because it is tied to the parties’ intimate relationship.
2. Whether an express cohabitation agreement that characterizes one party’s contributions as rent bars quantum meruit recovery for those contributions.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held the parties’ written agreement valid and enforceable.
- The court ruled that agreements between unmarried cohabitants concerning property and financial matters are generally enforceable if not founded primarily on sexual services and if they satisfy standard contract requirements.
- The court rejected treating the agreement under the heightened scrutiny applied to marital agreements.
- Because the agreement governed the characterization and consequences of Wilcox’s payments, the quantum meruit award was improper and had to be vacated.
- The court ordered entry of a new judgment declaring the agreement enforceable and disposing of Wilcox’s damages claim in Trautz’s favor.

## Legal Principles

- Unmarried cohabitants may enter enforceable contracts governing property and financial arrangements, evaluated under ordinary contract law.
- Such contracts are unenforceable if they are primarily based on sexual services or otherwise violate public policy.
- Courts do not apply marital fairness standards to cohabitation agreements between unmarried partners; ordinary formation defenses (e.g., fraud, duress) control.
- When a valid express contract addresses the subject matter of the parties’ financial arrangements, quasi-contract remedies such as quantum meruit and unjust enrichment are unavailable to contradict the contract’s allocation of rights.

## Conclusion

The court enforced a written cohabitation agreement that preserved separate property and treated one partner’s household payments as rent, holding that such agreements are valid under ordinary contract principles absent a sexual-services bargain, and that the express contract barred quantum meruit recovery.


Wilcox v. Trautz, 427 Mass. 326, 693 N.E.2d 141 (Mass. 1998)