Carnes v. Sheldon

Citation. 311 N.W.2d 747 (1981)

Powered by

Law Students: Don’t know your Bloomberg Law login? Register here

Citation311 N.W.2d 747 (1981)

Brief Fact Summary.

Carnes sued Sheldon regarding an implied contract.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

In situations where common law marriage is illegal and a court recognizing an implied contract will acknowledge the fact there was a common law marriage, courts cannot recognize an implied contract between the parties.

Points of Law - Legal Principles in this Case for Law Students.

The issue is a question of fact to be resolved through the consideration of all the circumstances, including the type of services rendered, the duration of the services, the closeness of the relationship of the parties, and the express expectations of the parties.

View Full Point of Law

Carnes and Sheldon moved in together with their respective kids and Carnes stayed at home and took care of the house while Sheldon worked. After the couple moved into a larger home Carnes began to work to help support the family. The couple broke up after Sheldon refused to marry Carnes and Carnes then sued for equitable division of the couple’s property. Carnes argument was based on the fact Sheldon promised to marry Carnes. If that argument failed Carnes argued in the alternative there was an implied contract between the parties to divide the property. The trial court held there was no evidence of an implied contract.

Issue.

Whether in situations where common law marriage is illegal and a court recognizing an implied contract will acknowledge the fact there was a common law marriage, courts cannot recognize an implied contract between the parties.

Held.

Yes. In situations where common law marriage is illegal and a court recognizing an implied contract will acknowledge the fact there was a common law marriage, courts cannot recognize an implied contract between the parties.

Discussion.

If a jurisdiction has abrogated common law marriage then courts in that jurisdiction cannot recognize a meretricious relationship, which includes an implied contract. Here, any recovery by the plaintiff would arise because there was a common-law marriage between the parties, which would be evident if the court were to rule an implied contract between the parties, and would contradict the intentions of the legislature.