Does My Ex-Boyfriend Owe Me Support?

Full question:

My question is in regards to a civil union/common-law marriage/domestic partner. Need to know if I have rights under any of those for what just recently happened to me in my relationship I had with my ex-boyfriend.We had been dating for the past 4 years on and off again. He needed a place to stay and I let him move into my apartment and then his job took him out of town to another city where he lived in company provided housing for about 7 mo. at which time he moved back into town and company provided housing. I had been laid off of my job and asked if I could move in with him for awhile which he agreed to do this and I agreed to pay for all groceries and supplies (laundry soap, cleaners, toilet items, etc) and cook and clean and do the laundry for my part of the living expenses which had come out of my unemployment ck which wasn't much. I kept every receipt that I purchased things for the home and have them added up which came to an average of 175-200 a week and I only got 376 a week. plus if you had to pay someone to cook, clean, and do your laundry i am sure that would be an easy 200/wk. I had car insurance, cell phone bill, gasoline, ect. and not to mention still trying to find a job. He didn't have rent to pay as the company paid for his housing although he says other wise but I know he didn't pay anything for it his boss told me that. He never once offered to buy groceries so I could save money. He only had cable TV bill he was responsible for. He was also provided with a company truck and gas card he by the way is Project Manager for Contractor makes 80000/yr. We lived as a romantic couple for almost 2 yrs there. He would tell me he loved me and he knew how much I loved him at times he really took advantage of the whole thing. He would only act like we were in a relationship when it seemed to benefit him and the rest of the time would blow me off for his buddies company instead.while living together he was in search of a house which WE spent over a year trying to find. When he found the home that he wanted we were going to go our separate ways. I still didn't have a job but was getting unemployment at the time. I decided that if we were going to live like just sex buddies and not move it up a notch I didn't want to do it anymore.Then the day before we were suppose to start moving he asks me to move with him. Which I reply w great concern to him I said I don't want to move out there with him if I going to be wasting my time again and not be in a commitment and that I didn't want to get all the way out there with all my belongings and have to turn around and move again in 6-8 mo. which by the way was a huge move for me about 50 miles from where we lived in the city to the middle of no where in tornado alley. Both of my vehicles were totaled while living out there due to a tornado/hail storm it put big dents all over them and took out windshields which his homeowner ins wouldn't cover I only had liability ins on them. He purchases a home with 5 acres and two big out buildings.He assured me that I wouldn't be wasting my time and that I wouldn't be kicked out either.Well here it is 8 mo later and he told me to get out he didn't want to fight anymore! So here it is 8 mo later have 2 total out vehicles, no where to live, no job, and he sits up there in all his glory. Wouldn't give me any cash to move with or help me move. Then throws a party the weekend after I move out. He knew I had no where to go and no job. I had to move in with my dad, and move all of my stuff out by myself he didn't offer to help until the 3rd day into it. I am crushed, broke, my unemployment ran out, homeless, and has no self esteem left. He would and still does try to have sex with me and turn on the charm but just long enough to get what he wants and then the next day its the silent treatment and if you ask him a question he would yell at the top of his voice some snide answer back he made me feel so used. He has apparently done this to two other women before me which I have just recently found out about along with some other bazaar things.I am wondering if I am entitled to some kind of palimony or any kind of support from him to help me get a place to live. My dad is 74 years old and is planning on moving to a smaller home soon so I need to find a place to live still? Do I have any rights to get some kind of support from this manipulator? Thank you for your time with this matter.

• Category: Cohabitation
• Date: 04/07/2025
• State: Colorado

Answer:

Generally, unmarried cohabitants do not enjoy the same rights as married individuals, particularly with respect to property acquired during a relationship. Marital property laws and other family laws related to marriage do not apply to unmarried couples, even in long-term relationships. The characterization of property acquired by unmarried cohabitants is less clear than that of married couples whose ownership of property is governed by marital and community property laws. Some property acquired by unmarried couples may be owned jointly, but it may be difficult to divide such property when the relationship ends. There is no obligation of financial support attached to a couple who cohabits, absent an agreement to the contrary. If you are financially dependent on a romantic partner and the relationship ends, the effects of the breakup can be much harsher.

Cohabitation is generally defined as two people living together as if a married couple. State laws vary in defining cohabitation. Some states have statutes which make cohabitation a criminal offense under adultery laws. Under one state's law, cohabitation means "regularly residing with an adult of the same or opposite sex, if the parties hold themselves out as a couple, and regardless of whether the relationship confers a financial benefit on the party receiving alimony. Proof of sexual relations is admissible but not required to prove cohabitation." Another state statute defines cohabitation as "the dwelling together continuously and habitually of a man and a woman who are in a private conjugal relationship not solemnized as a marriage according to law, or not necessarily meeting all the standards of a common-law marriage." Yet another state, Georgia, defines cohabitation as "dwelling together continuously and openly in a meretricious relationship with another person, regardless of the sex of the other person."

Living together, or cohabitation, in a non-marital relationship does not automatically entitle either party to acquire any rights in the property of the other party acquired during the period of cohabitation. However, adults who voluntarily live together and engage in sexual relations may enter into a contract to establish the respective rights and duties of the parties with respect to their earnings and the property acquired from their earnings during the nonmarital relationship. While parties to a nonmarital cohabitation agreement cannot lawfully contract to pay for the performance of sexual services, they may agree to pool their earnings and hold all property acquired during the relationship separately, jointly or to be governed by community property laws. They may also agree to pool only part of their earnings and property, form a partnership or joint venture or joint enterprise, or hold property as joint tenants or tenants in common, or agree to any other arrangement.

Other legal issues that may be affect cohabiting couples inlude estate planning and medical care. Generally, someone who cohabits with another is not considered an heir under the law or have the same rights to make medical care decisions in the same manner as a spouse. Therefore, unmarried cohabitants may consider estate planning and power of attorneys in addition to having a nonmarital agreement.

In some cases of people who formerly cohabited, courts have found a trust created in property of one person who cohabits with another, whereby the property is deemed held for the benefit of their domestic partner. When there is no formal trust agreement, a resulting trust may still be found under certain circumstances in order to enforce agreements regarding the property and income of domestic partners. If there is evidence that the parties intended to create a trust, but the formalities of a trust are lacking, the court may declare a resulting trust exists. The court may also declare that a constructive trust exists, which is essentially a legal fiction designed to avoid injustice and prevent giving an unfair advantage to one of the parties. This may be based on the contributions made by one partner to the property of the other. Each case is decided on its own facts, taking all circumstances into consideration.

A minority of states have anti-cohabitation laws on their books, although they are largely not enforced. State laws also exist allowing cohabitation as affirmative defense in certain criminal sexual offenses. Cohabitation alone may not qualify as common law marriage. Under the terms of an alimony order, payments may cease if the recipient cohabits with another. Some state statutes and case law allow modification or termination of alimony based upon a significant change of circumstances, such as cohabitation. State laws involving cohabitation vary by state, so local laws should be consulted for requirements and applicablilty in your area.

Jared Laskin, a prominent “palimony” lawyer in California has written an online article about palimony since the 1976 decision of Marvin v. Marvin; see: http://www.palimony.com/7.html. Reading that article will give some notion of the rights of a cohabitant whose domestic partnership is not working.

It is recommended for cohabiting couples to create a cohabitation agreement, which can be enforced under contract law principles. Such agreements provide for the terms of dividing assets and debts upon termination of the relationship. Please see the links to the forms below.

A resulting trust is a trust created in property of one person who cohabits with another, whereby the property is deemed held for the benefit of their domestic partner. When there is no formal trust agreement, a resulting trust may still be found under certain circumstances in order to enforce agreements regarding the property and income of domestic partners. If there is evidence that the parties intended to create a trust, but the formalities of a trust are lacking, the court may find a resulting trust exists.

The court may also declare that a constructive trust exists, which is essentially a legal fiction designed to avoid injustice and prevent giving an unfair advantage to one of the parties. This may be based on the contributions made by one partner to the property of the other. The court typically requires a finding of unjust enrichment before it wil impose a constructive trust. Each case is decided on its own facts, taking all circumstances into consideration.

The doctrine of unjust enrichment is based upon the principle that one should not be permitted unjustly to enrich himself at the expense of another but should be required to make restitution of or for property received, retained or appropriated. The general rule is that a payment of money under a mistake of fact may be recovered provided that such payment will not prejudice the payee. It is considered unjust enrichment to permit a recipient to retain money paid because of a mistake, unless the circumstances are such that it would be inequitable to require its return. This applies even if the mistake is one on one side (unilateral) and a consequence of the payors negligence, or that the payee acted in good faith. "A person who has conferred a benefit on another by mistake is not precluded from maintaining an action for restitution by the fact that the mistake was due to his lack of care." (Restatement of Restitution § 59.) Equity, which is based on notions of fairness, often allows a person who pays money to another under the mistaken belief a valid contract exists to recover that money when the contract is subsequently canceled for fraud or mistake and the rights of innocent parties have not intervened. (Restatement of Restitution §§ 17, 28.)

A constructive trust is one that arises by operation of law against one who, by fraud, wrongdoing, or any other unconscionable conduct, either has obtained or holds legal right to property which he ought not to, in good conscience, keep and enjoy. A constructive trust is an appropriate remedy against unjust enrichment. Unjust enrichment is present in nearly every case where a constructive trust is imposed. However, the court's creation of a constructive trust is not necessarily dependent on a finding that the person whose property is subjected to it has acted wrongly, but may rest as well upon a finding of unjust enrichment arising from other circumstances that "render it inequitable for the party holding the title to retain it." (Starleper v. Hamilton 106 Md.App. 632, 666 A.2d 867 (1995).)

The basis for creating a constructive trust is to prevent unjust enrichment. (Restatement of Restitution § 160, comment c.) "Where a person wrongfully disposes of property of another knowing that the disposition is wrongful and acquires in exchange other property, the other is entitled to enforce a constructive trust of the property so acquired." If the property so acquired is or becomes more valuable than the property used in acquiring it, the profit thus made by the wrongdoer cannot be retained by him; the person whose property was used in making the profit is entitled to it." (Restatement Restitution § 202.) When property is given or devised to a defendant in breach of a donor's or testator's contract with a plaintiff, equity will impose a constructive trust upon that property being held by another even though (1) the transfer is not the result of breach of a fiduciary duty or an actual or constructive fraud practiced upon the plaintiff, and (2) the donee or devisee had no knowledge of the wrongdoing or breach of contract. (Jones v. Harrison , 250 Va. 64, 458 S.E.2d 766 (1995 ).)

A person who has been unjustly enriched at the expense of another may be required to make restitution to the other. Despite not having a contractual agreement, a trial court may require an individual to make restitution for unjust enrichment if he has received a benefit which would be unconscionable to retain. A person may be deemed to be unjustly enriched if he (or she) has received a benefit, and keeping it would create injustice.