Also known as:cohabitation · nonmarital cohabitation · cohabit · cohabited · cohabiting
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
Living together by two unmarried persons in a shared residence. This arrangement supplies an element for common law marriage when combined with consent and public holding out. It also supports putative spouse status when one party believes in good faith that a valid marriage exists.
See Our Sources
How its tested
Common Examples
6
Cohabitation Completes Common Law Marriage
Clifford Cox and Corinne Cho lived together for three years in a single home. They used a joint bank account and introduced themselves to neighbors as husband and wife. A court found that their cohabitation satisfied the second element needed to recognize their common law marriage.
Good Faith Belief Creates Putative Spouse Rights
Craig Caldwell cohabited with Caitlin Crowley for four years after a ceremony he believed was legally binding. When the marriage proved invalid, the court awarded him maintenance as a putative spouse because his belief remained genuine throughout the cohabitation.
Connor Clark and Christopher Collins shared an apartment and agreed only to live together indefinitely. The court refused to treat their arrangement as a marriage because the parties never consented to a permanent and exclusive relationship.
Cohabitation Establishes Protected Parental Bond
Canyon Construction employee Wade resided with his partner and their child for five years before the partner's death. The court held that this cohabitation created a liberty interest requiring notice and a hearing before the state could remove the child.
Obergefell v. Hodges576 U.S. 644 (2015)
The petitioners were fourteen same-sex couples and two men whose same-sex partners were deceased. They lived in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee. Those states defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman under their constitutions and statutes.
The petitioners filed suits in federal district courts in their home states. They sought marriage licenses or recognition of marriages lawfully performed elsewhere. James Obergefell and John Arthur traveled from Ohio to Maryland to marry aboard a medical transport plane because Arthur suffered from ALS; Obergefell later sought to be listed as surviving spouse on Arthur's death certificate. April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, Michigan nurses, adopted three children but could not both serve as legal parents under state adoption rules. Army Reserve Sergeant Ijpe DeKoe and Thomas Kostura married in New York before DeKoe's deployment to Afghanistan and later settled in Tennessee.
Each district court ruled in the petitioners' favor. The respondents appealed. The Sixth Circuit consolidated the cases and reversed the district court judgments. The petitioners sought certiorari, which the Supreme Court granted.
Same-sex couples had begun establishing families after substantial cultural and political developments in the late twentieth century. Earlier litigation had addressed the legal status of gays and lesbians, including challenges that reached the Supreme Court in Bowers v. Hardwick and Lawrence v. Texas.
Alan lived with his partner and son above a store for five years while serving as primary caregiver. After the partner's death the city removed the child without a hearing under an ordinance targeting unmarried fathers. The court ruled that the cohabitation created a protected relationship triggering due process safeguards.
Bowers v. Hardwick478 U.S. 186 (1986)
In August 1982, respondent Michael Hardwick was charged with violating the Georgia statute criminalizing sodomy by committing that act with another adult male in the bedroom of respondent's home. After a preliminary hearing, the District Attorney decided not to present the matter to the grand jury unless further evidence developed.
Hardwick, who identified as a practicing homosexual, then brought suit in the Federal District Court challenging the constitutionality of the statute insofar as it criminalized consensual sodomy. He asserted that the Georgia sodomy statute, as administered by the defendants, placed him in imminent danger of arrest. The District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, relying on Doe v. Commonwealth's Attorney for the City of Richmond, which the Supreme Court had summarily affirmed.
A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed. The appellate court held that the Georgia statute violated respondent's fundamental rights because his homosexual activity is a private and intimate association beyond the reach of state regulation by reason of the Ninth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It remanded for trial.
John and Mary Doe were also plaintiffs in the action. They alleged that they wished to engage in sexual activity proscribed by the statute in the privacy of their home and that they had been chilled and deterred from engaging in such activity by both the existence of the statute and Hardwick's arrest. The District Court held that because they had neither sustained, nor were in immediate danger of sustaining, any direct injury from the enforcement of the statute, they did not have proper standing to maintain the action. The Court of Appeals affirmed that dismissal.
The Georgia statute at issue, Ga. Code Ann. § 16-6-2, provides that a person commits the offense of sodomy when he performs or submits to any sexual act involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another. A person convicted shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than twenty years. Because other Courts of Appeals had arrived at judgments contrary to that of the Eleventh Circuit, the Supreme Court granted the Attorney General's petition for certiorari questioning the holding that the sodomy statute violates the fundamental rights of homosexuals.
Evan cohabited with his partner and daughter for seven years as the child's daily caregiver. Upon the partner's death the agency placed the child in foster care based solely on database status. The court required an individualized hearing because the cohabitation had formed a constitutionally protected custodial relationship.
Turner v. Rogers564 U.S. 431 (2011)
In June 2003 a South Carolina family court entered an order requiring petitioner Michael Turner to pay respondent Rebecca Rogers $51.73 per week to help support their child. Rogers' father Larry Price currently has custody of the child and is also a respondent before this Court.
Over the next three years Turner repeatedly failed to pay the amount due and was held in contempt on five occasions. The first four times he was sentenced to 90 days' imprisonment but ultimately paid what he owed. He paid twice without being jailed and twice after spending a few days in custody. The fifth time he did not pay but completed a six-month sentence.
After his release Turner remained in arrears. On March 27, 2006 the family court clerk issued a new show cause order because Turner was $5,728.76 behind. Following an initial postponement due to Turner's failure to appear, his civil contempt hearing took place on January 3, 2008. Turner and Rogers were both present without representation by counsel.
The court clerk stated the arrearage amount. The judge asked Turner if there was anything he wanted to say. Turner described getting back on drugs after release, breaking his back in September, filing for disability and SSI benefits, and hoping for another chance. The judge then asked Rogers if she had anything to say. The judge found Turner in willful contempt and sentenced him to twelve months in the Oconee County Detention Center. Turner could purge the contempt by reaching a zero balance.
The judge completed a prewritten Order for Contempt of Court form but left blank the statement indicating whether Turner was gainfully employed and had the ability to make support payments when due. Turner served the full sentence. While serving the sentence Turner appealed with pro bono counsel claiming a federal constitutional right to counsel at the contempt hearing. The South Carolina Supreme Court rejected the claim after Turner completed his sentence. Turner sought certiorari, and the United States Supreme Court granted review.
Within months of his release from the twelve-month imprisonment Turner was again the subject of civil contempt proceedings. He had arrears of $13,814.72 as of December 2010. Another hearing was scheduled for May 2011.
Does cohabitation alone create a common law marriage?
No. Cohabitation must combine with an exchange of consents and public holding out as spouses. An agreement merely to live together is insufficient.
Supporting sources
What rights does a putative spouse gain from cohabitation?
A person who cohabits in good faith belief of a valid marriage acquires rights of a legal spouse, including maintenance, until learning the marriage is invalid.
Supporting sources
How does nonmarital cohabitation affect parental rights?
Long-term cohabitation with a child as primary caregiver creates a liberty interest protected by due process, requiring notice and a hearing before removal.
Supporting sources
431 U.S. 494, 503 (1977)
…relatives, principally the spouse and unmarried and dependent children. Excluded from the definition of "family," and hence from cohabitation, are various persons related by blood or adoption to the head of the household. The obvious purpose of the city is the traditional one of preserving certain areas as family residential…
Constitutional LawIndividual rights · Procedural due process, including the constitutional right to process in administrative hearingsNEXTGENIntermediate