Posik v. Layton - 695 So. 2d 759 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

Rule:

An agreement for support between unmarried adults is valid unless the agreement is inseparably based upon illicit consideration of sexual services. Certainly prostitution, heterosexual or homosexual, cannot be condoned merely because it is performed within the confines of a written agreement. The Statute of Frauds requires that contracts made upon consideration of marriage must be in writing. This same requirement should apply to non-marital, nuptial-like agreements. In this case, there is (and can be) no dispute that the agreement exists.

Facts:

Emma Posik and Nancy L. R. Layton entered into a support agreement much like a prenuptial agreement. When Dr. Layton announced that she wished to move another woman into the house, appellant expressed strong displeasure with this idea. Dr. Layton moved out and took up residence with the other woman. Dr. Layton served a three-day eviction notice on Posik. Posik moved from the home and sued to enforce the terms of the agreement. Dr. Layton defended on the basis that appellant first breached the agreement. The trial court found the agreement to be unenforceable. 

Issue:

Was the support agreement between the parties enforceable?

Answer:

Yes

Conclusion:

The court held that it disagreed with the trial court that Posik breached the agreement by refusing to perform housework, yard work, and provisioning for the house. Also, the court disagreed that the commitment to pay $ 2,500 per month upon termination of the agreement was unenforceable as a penalty. The court affirmed the judgment which addressed the promissory note and reversed the portion which failed to enforce the parties' agreement.