PALIMONY IN WISCONSIN?

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals just decided a case arising in La Crosse County called Jahimiak v. Long.  The case should stand as a reminder that parties who decide to live together and accumulate property together outside of marriage can cause significant legal problems in the increasingly common circumstance where those relationships end. 

In recent years, it has been more common for people to cohabit without the benefit of marriage.  When this cohabitation extends for years, the unmarried persons in such relationships frequently accumulate the same legal and financial entanglements married people do.  As cohabiting couples “break up” the legal system is then asked how to resolve the resulting legal and financial problems.

Should things like real estate, boats and cars belong solely to the person whose name is on the title?  Who should receive how much of various financial accounts or retirement plans?  Who should get credit for how much of what was previously paid toward their joint financial obligations or what one party contributed to pay on the debts of the other?

When married parties see their relationship end, the legal system has an entire chapter of Wisconsin statutes governing divorce in place to deal with untangling the legal and financial issues involved.   However, when the parties are not married, and have not agreed in advance how to resolve future problems, the legal dispute can be substantial and the results uncertain.    

In 1977, actor Lee Marvin was sued by a woman with whom he cohabited.  She claimed that when they moved in together, he promised to support her for life.  Noted California divorce attorney Marvin Mitchelson referred to the claim he brought against Marvin for breach of that contract as a suit seeking “palimony.”  Palimony has come to be understood as a shorthand way of describing court action brought to apportion the financial consequences arising from the break-up of a long term non-marital relationship.

In 1987, in Watts v. Watts, the Wisconsin Supreme Court decided divorce laws would not apply to such situations.  But it ruled long standing legal claims employed in other situations could be used to determine legal rights former cohabiting parties might have in assets or debts accumulated during the time they lived together.  The Court ruled legal claims like breach of an express contract, breach of an implied in fact contract, unjust enrichment and partition could be used to divide real estate, financial assets, and personal property accumulated during the relationship.

Parties considering cohabitation can reduce their exposure to expensive and uncertain future lawsuits if they have an attorney draft an agreement to govern their legal rights in such a circumstance.  Individuals who have accumulated property during cohabitation without such a written agreement should consult an attorney when the relationship ends to be sure their financial and legal rights are protected.