State laws confer concern rights and obligations on couples who are legally married. When they divorce, the same is true. Courts have adopted formulas they apply to arrive at a financial settlement for both parties, based on a number of factors such as earnings, child support and contributions to the marriage.
Some states have also followed this same approach for unmarried couples who separate. The term, palimony, a combination of the words “pal” and “alimony,” generally refers to a court-ordered financial settlement between two parties who separated after living together for a significant period of time, but never married. Michigan courts have never followed the trend evolving in other states to recognize so-called palimony. The act of living together, in and of itself, confers no rights to unmarried couples.
Assume Sam and Jeremy lived together as a couple in Sam’s house for 20 years. Sam found a new boyfriend and asked Jeremy to move out. Jeremy felt he was owed some financial compensation and sued Sam. Not only will this lawsuit fail if based solely on a palimony claim, but Michigan Courts have ruled there can be no “recognition” of a “union” similar to marriage “for any purpose.” This language unfortunately puts Michigan in the category of states that have taken a particularly restrictive and punitive approach to limiting any rights or benefits that might come from a relationship that is other than a marriage between a man and a woman.
Individuals in a domestic partnership in Michigan can protect themselves by making their own agreements affecting their relationship, including what happens at a separation. Michigan will honor an agreement between parties, whether oral or written, if the agreement provides for a property transfer and meets contractual requirements. In other words, Jeremy would have at least some chance of succeeding in his claim if he could introduce evidence to show that Sam promised to compensate or “take care of” Jeremy in exchange for receiving something tangible, in return, from Jeremy. This would satisfy the “consideration” element of a contract. Oral contracts are difficult to prove and the best approach is to have a written Domestic Partnership Agreement.
gaylawblogger 