On February 23, 2012, the Ohio Supreme Court reaffirmed its 1887 holding that “Love and Affection” in and of itself is not consideration for a contract. In its Opinion (Williams v. Ormsby, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-690) the Court found that the act of moving into a home with a person to resume a romantic relationship did not satisfy the legal requirement of consideration essential to forming a valid and binding contract. In this case, Ms. Williams owned the residence (a house for which she obtained the title through a divorce settlement) which had a mortgage balance of approximately $310,000. Mr. Ormsby moved into the house with Ms. Williams in May of 2004 and the two resided there together in a non-marital relationship, but had plans to eventually marry. In August of 2004, Mr. Ormsby began making the payments on the mortgage and in December of that year he paid off the balance of the mortgage. Ms. Williams then transferred the title of the property to Mr. Ormsby by way of a quit claim deed.

The couple cancelled their plans to marry in January of 2005 due to the fact that Mr. Ormsby’s divorce had not occurred. In March of that same year, the couple had an argument which led to Ms. Williams leaving the residence. At that time Mr. Ormsby also filed a restraining order against Ms. Williams. Later that month, the couple agreed in writing that the house be sold immediately and the first $324,000 of the selling price be paid to Mr. Ormsby with the remainder paid to Ms. Williams.

A plan to reconcile occurred two months after the signing of the March agreement. In accordance with Ms. Williams’s demand to be granted an undivided one half interest in the house prior to resuming the relationship the couple signed a new agreement in June of 2005 which stated that the couple were to be “equal partners” with regards to the residence and provided for the division of the property should the relationship end. The couple sought counseling, but eventually the relationship ended in September of 2007. Both parties remained in the residence and lived in separate areas of the house until Mr. Ormsby left in April of 2008. Both parties filed suit against one another. Mr. Ormsby maintained that both the March and June agreements were not enforceable contracts as they lacked consideration. Ms. Williams maintained that the June agreement was a novation of the March agreement.

Of note, the June 2005 agreement used the term “for valuable consideration” but failed to specify what constituted consideration. A trial court first heard the case and found that the March agreement was a binding contract, but that the June agreement lacked consideration and was thus unenforceable. Ms. Williams appealed the decision and the appellate court reviewed the facts of the case and legal precedents on related matters and determined that Ms. Williams’s act of returning to the house and resuming the relationship constituted sufficient legal consideration thus making the June agreement an enforceable contract under Ohio law.

Mr. Ormsby appealed the appellate court’s decision and the case was brought before the Ohio Supreme Court. The Court reviewed the appellate court’s decision and the precedents the appellate court relied on for its decision. The Court found that the appellate court had erred in its interpretation of the cases and in its interpretation of the facts of the case at hand.

The Court stated “…Rather, the evidence demonstrates that the only consideration offered by Amber for the June 2005 agreement was her resumption of a romantic relationship with Frederick. There is no detriment to Amber in the June 2005 document, only benefit. Essentially, this agreement amounts to a gratuitous promise by Frederick to give Amber an interest in property based solely on the consideration of her love and affection. Therefore, the June 2005 document is not an enforceable contract because it fails for want of consideration.”According to Ohio law, a return to a romantic relationship is not recognized as sufficient legal consideration to form a contract between unmarried persons.

For more information about the case and to read the full Opinion see:

2010-1946.  Williams v. Ormsby, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-690.
Medina App. No. 09CA0085-M, 190 Ohio App.3d 815, 2010-Ohio-4664.  The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed.
O’Connor, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton, Cupp, and McGee Brown, JJ., concur.
O’Donnell, J., concurs in judgment only.
Pfeifer, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2012/2012-Ohio-690.pdf