Tompkins v. Jackson - 2009 NY Slip Op 50319(U), 22 Misc. 3d 1128(A), 880 N.Y.S.2d 876 (Sup. Ct.)

Rule:

As to personal services between unmarried persons living together or unmarried persons whose actions flow out of mutual friendship and reciprocal regard, there is very little difference. An implied contract to compensate for those things which are ordinarily done by one person for another as a matter of regard and affection should not, under these well-established principles, be recognized in this state. Such a claim in the context of a cohabiting relationship is against New York's public policy.

Facts:

The parties began dating when Shaniqua Tompkins, plaintiff, who was in college and Curtis Jackson, defendant, who was recently paroled and unemployed. While plaintiff was pregnant, it was at this time that the parties allegedly entered into the oral agreement which are the promises of the defendant to take care of plaintiff for the rest of her life when he made it big in the entertainment industry. Plaintiff financially supported defendant and their joint venture agreement. Plaintiff also continued to honor her obligations when defendant could not perform his work obligations. When their relationship turned sour, plaintiff sought lifetime financial support from defendant claiming that it was in accordance to the promise he made. Defendant denied plaintiff’s claims and sought a summary judgment arguing that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for any of her claims in the complaint. In support of dismissal, defendant argued that the alleged oral agreement violated the Statute of Fraud as it obligated defendant to support plaintiff for the rest of her life, and its terms cannot be performed within one year or before the end of a lifetime.

Issue:

Was the plaintiff entitled to lifetime financial support based on the alleged oral agreement with the defendant?

Answer:

No. The court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in dismissing the complaint in its entirety, and the complaint was also dismissed.

Conclusion:

The court held that while those statements demonstrated loving devotion and loyalty, such statements undermine plaintiff's breach of contract and quantum merit claims for half of defendant's wealth. Such a claim in the context of a cohabiting relationship is against New York's public policy. Also, plaintiff’s loving care and assistance she provided to defendant does not transform her relationship to a one founded upon contract. To conclude otherwise would transform the parties' personal, yet informal relationship to that of a marriage. Therefore, the court ruled that the alleged oral agreement to take care of plaintiff for the rest of her life in exchange for her promise to perform household duties and take care of the parties' children was unenforceable.  Consequently, any claims based on such oral agreement, including specific performance of same, an accounting of all of defendant's assets, mandamus relief, and declaratory relief, lack merit, and are dismissed.