## Facts

- Amber Williams owned a house in Medina, Ohio, obtained through a divorce settlement.
- Frederick Ormsby moved into the house in May 2004, began paying the mortgage and taxes, and ultimately paid off the remaining mortgage balance (about $310,000).
- Williams executed and recorded a quitclaim deed in December 2004 transferring title to Ormsby.
- After the parties canceled marriage plans and separated in early 2005, they signed a March 24, 2005 document to sell the house and allocate sale proceeds.
- The parties attempted reconciliation; Williams said she would not move back in unless Ormsby granted her an undivided one-half interest in the house.
- On June 2, 2005, the parties signed a second document stating they were “equal partners” in the house and setting out property disposition if the relationship ended; Williams then returned to the home.
- The relationship later ended in 2007; Ormsby left the house in 2008.
- In 2008, the parties filed separate suits that were consolidated; Williams sought specific performance or damages based on the June 2005 document, and Ormsby sought a declaration that the contracts were void for lack of consideration.

## Issues

1. Whether merely resuming a romantic relationship by moving into a home with another can constitute consideration sufficient to form an enforceable contract.
2. Whether the June 2, 2005 “equal partners” document was supported by consideration, including by Williams’s return to the home or by superseding/rescinding the March 24, 2005 agreement.

## Decision

- The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the trial court’s judgment.
- The Court held that merely moving into a home with another while engaging in a romantic relationship is not consideration for contract formation.
- The Court concluded the June 2, 2005 document lacked consideration and was unenforceable; title remained vested exclusively in Ormsby.

## Legal Principles

- Consideration requires a bargained-for exchange involving a legal detriment to the promisee or a benefit to the promisor.
- Emotional commitment, love, affection, or the continuation/resumption of a romantic relationship is not a legally cognizable detriment or benefit and therefore cannot serve as consideration.
- An agreement between unmarried cohabitants concerning property may be enforceable only if supported by traditional consideration; courts will not enforce arrangements that effectively treat the relationship itself as the exchanged value.
- A writing that reflects a gratuitous promise to transfer or share property, without new legal detriment or benefit, is not an enforceable contract.

## Conclusion

The Ohio Supreme Court held that an unmarried partner’s return to a shared home and resumption of a romantic relationship cannot constitute consideration, rendering the parties’ “equal partners” property-sharing document unenforceable and leaving sole title to the house in Ormsby.


Williams v. Ormsby, 131 Ohio St. 3d 427, 966 N.E.2d 255 (Ohio 2012)