Cohabitation Agreement Template, Marvin-Compliant (US)

A cohabitation agreement is a legally binding contract between two people who live together in a romantic relationship without being married. It records how the partners will handle property, income, household expenses, and debts during the relationship, and how those assets will be divided if they separate. Lawyers sometimes call the underlying claim a Marvin agreement, after the 1976 California Supreme Court case that first held these contracts enforceable.

People confuse this document with a prenuptial agreement, but the difference is fundamental. A prenup takes effect only on marriage and is governed by family-law statutes; a cohabitation agreement is a plain contract governed by ordinary contract law, enforceable whether or not the couple ever marries. It is closer to a business partnership agreement than to a marriage license. That distinction matters because unmarried partners have no statutory right to each other's property, income, or support on separation, no matter how long they have lived together. There is no such thing as a "common-law divorce." The agreement is what creates the rights that marriage would otherwise supply, which is why couples who blend money, co-sign a mortgage or other major obligation, often pair it with a promissory note, and split living costs benefit most from putting terms in writing before a dispute arises.

Cohabitation agreements rest on contract law, not family law, and the governing rules come from state courts rather than a single federal statute. The foundational authority is Marvin v. Marvin, 18 Cal.3d 660 (1976), in which the California Supreme Court held that courts should enforce express contracts between nonmarital partners except where the agreement is explicitly founded on sexual services as consideration. That single qualification is the heart of the doctrine: a contract that trades property or support for a sexual relationship is void as against public policy, while a contract resting on shared finances, homemaking, or pooled earnings is valid. The Marvin rule spread quickly, and courts in New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and Minnesota issued decisions adopting similar reasoning.

Today the rule reaches nearly every jurisdiction. Most states enforce these contracts, and many recognize oral or implied versions, though a written agreement is far stronger evidence and may be required outright. Where the agreement covers an interest in real estate, the Statute of Frauds generally forces it into writing to be enforceable, which is one more reason a signed document beats a verbal understanding. Couples should know that a cohabitation agreement cannot override the best interests of the child standard. Any clause purporting to fix child custody or waive child support is unenforceable, because those rights belong to the child and not to the contracting adults, a point that also shapes any companion parenting and child-related family arrangement the couple may need. For a neutral overview of how these contracts and palimony claims are analyzed, the Cornell Legal Information Institute summary of palimony and cohabitation principles is a reliable starting point.

The most common trigger is buying property together. The moment two unmarried partners put money toward a shared home, a car, or furniture, they create a tangle that no state will untie automatically on a breakup. A written agreement fixes each person's ownership share and spells out who buys whom out, instead of leaving it to a partition lawsuit. The next frequent scenario is one partner moving into a home the other already owns. Without terms, the non-owner can spend years paying toward a mortgage and walk away with nothing, while the owner risks a Marvin claim asserting an implied promise to share. Both sides are safer with the expectations written down.

Couples who merge bank accounts, share credit cards, or support each other through school or a career change have a third reason to document the deal. Verbal promises to "take care of you" are exactly the claims that produce expensive litigation years later, because memory and motive diverge once the relationship sours. An edge case worth flagging: partners in a state that recognizes common-law marriage, such as Texas or Colorado, sometimes want the agreement precisely to disclaim any intent to be informally married, keeping their finances separate by design. Another arises at death, where a surviving partner with no will and no agreement is often a legal stranger to the estate, which is why many couples sign this alongside a will and estate-planning document.

• The identification of the parties and the relationship establishes that both partners are competent adults entering the contract voluntarily, and states expressly that the agreement is supported by consideration independent of any sexual relationship. This single recital is what keeps the contract on the enforceable side of the Marvin line.
• The separate property schedule lists what each partner owned before moving in and confirms it stays separate. Without it, assets blur over years of shared life, and a court is left guessing whose savings paid for what.
• The shared property and contribution terms define how jointly acquired assets are titled and what percentage each partner owns, often tied to documented contributions rather than a flat 50/50 split. This is where home equity, vehicles, and furniture get allocated.
• The expense-sharing provisions set out who pays rent or mortgage, utilities, groceries, and household costs, and in what proportion. Clear numbers here prevent the slow-burning resentment that ends most cohabitation disputes.
• The separation and dissolution clause is the core of the agreement, describing exactly how property is divided, whether either partner owes the other any support, and the timeline for one to buy out or vacate a shared home.
• The dispute resolution and governing law provisions name the state whose law applies and channel disagreements into mediation or arbitration before litigation, which keeps a private split out of open court.

California is the birthplace of the doctrine through Marvin v. Marvin, and its courts readily enforce express written cohabitation agreements and even implied ones drawn from the parties' conduct. A written contract is strongly preferred because it forecloses the swearing contests that implied-contract claims invite. California treats the agreement as ordinary contract, so standard defenses like fraud, duress, and unconscionability apply, and full financial disclosure between partners strengthens enforceability.

Texas recognizes informal (common-law) marriage, which changes the calculus. A couple living together and holding themselves out as married may be deemed informally married under Texas Family Code §2.401, exposing them to community-property division they never intended. Here a cohabitation agreement does double duty: it sets financial terms and can expressly state the partners do not intend an informal marriage, protecting each one's separate estate.

New York has no common-law marriage and enforces express cohabitation contracts under contract principles, following Morone v. Morone, 50 N.Y.2d 481 (1980), which accepted express agreements but rejected implied ones. In New York the lesson is blunt: if it is not written, it is very hard to enforce. A clearly drafted signed agreement is close to essential for unmarried New York couples who share property.

Illinois is the cautionary state. For decades Hewitt v. Hewitt (1979) barred financial claims between former cohabitants as contrary to public policy. The 2016 decision in Blumenthal v. Brewer, 2016 IL 118781, loosened this, allowing claims based on contracts that stand independent of the marriage-like relationship, yet Illinois remains stricter than most. Couples there should draft so the agreement reads as an arm's-length contract about specific property, not a substitute for marriage, and may want a prenuptial agreement instead if marriage is on the table.

You begin by selecting the state where you and your partner live, since that choice drives the governing-law clause and flags any local quirks like common-law marriage in Texas or the stricter posture in Illinois. From there you enter both partners' legal names and the date you started or plan to start living together. The form then walks you through separate property, asking each partner to list assets owned before the relationship so they stay individually owned. Next you set the shared-property and expense terms, choosing how jointly bought assets are titled and what percentage each partner pays toward rent, mortgage, and household costs. You then define the separation terms, including how property divides and whether either partner provides support if you split. The tool assembles these answers into a clean, signature-ready contract you can review with your partner and, where you both want extra assurance, take to a notarized affidavit or sworn statement step before signing.

The first and most damaging mistake is relying on a verbal understanding. Unmarried partners routinely assume that years of shared life create rights, but with no common-law divorce and no statutory property regime, a handshake leaves both exposed when memories diverge. A second error is drafting the agreement around the relationship itself rather than around specific property and money. Any language that reads as payment for companionship or sex risks voiding the whole contract under Marvin, and in states like Illinois a contract that looks like a workaround for marriage may not hold at all. A related trap is hiding assets or skipping disclosure, which hands the other partner a fraud defense and can collapse the agreement years later.

People also overreach by trying to control things contract cannot touch. Clauses fixing child custody or waiving child support are void, because those decisions belong to a court applying the best interests of the child standard. Finally, couples sign once and forget. A buyout figure or expense split that fit a studio apartment makes no sense after you buy a house or one partner stops working, so the agreement needs review whenever finances change materially.