a1263ae7-77ce-4e50-a1a8-7ab5d4610f39.doc 566 Carnes v. Sheldon, MI Court of Appeals, 1981 Will implied-in-fact Ks be found for meretricious relationships? Issue Reasoning ∏ not entitled to an equitable division of property because (1) the trial court's finding that the boyfriend did not promise to marry her (2) ∏ had unilateral expectation of marriage (3) the parties were not putative spouses; and (4) ∏ was essentially asking for relief based on a breach of promise to marry, an action which had been specifically abolished by legislative fiat. No express agreement was shown to exist and such an agreement cannot be implied in fact. Providing some legal protection to unmarried couples should be left to the legislature. Household services are considered gratuitous. Wages are recoverable Services must be commercial to be recoverable Rule Michigan will not enforce contracts made in consideration of meretricious relationships. However, the court recognizes that the existence of a meretricious relationship does not render all agreements between the parties illegal. Where there is an express agreement to accumulate or transfer property following a relationship of some permanence and an additional consideration in the form of either money or of services, the courts tend to find an independent consideration (co-habitation amount to payment for sex and are thus illegal) Facts ∆ was married and, after a divorce, was awarded custody of the couple's four children. ∏ moved in with him, and his refusal to marry her resulted in the eventual demise of their relationship. Held Procedure P argues D argues Remanded ∏ is asking for equitable division of property. Trial court denied request. ∏ appeals. The evidence supported recovery on the basis of either a contract implied in law or implied in fact. There was no agreement to share his property with her.