Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Family Law Cohabitants topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears debate, agrees to roll Uniform Cohabitants Economic Remedies Act for revision
Summary
Lawmakers heard hours of testimony on House Bill 123, a Uniform Law Commission model that would allow cohabiting partners to assert implied agreements and equitable claims; the sponsor agreed to roll the bill for amendments after members raised concerns about breadth, potential for litigation and consumer protections.
House Bill 123, the Uniform Cohabitants Economic Remedies Act, drew extended discussion as the Judiciary Committee considered whether to advance a uniform-model law that would let unmarried cohabiting partners enforce implied agreements and seek equitable remedies for financial and nonmonetary contributions.
Representative Charlotte Little presented the bill and introduced Sarah Bennett, a family-law expert who testified she practiced for decades and supported the measure as a way to provide remedies when cohabiting couples separate. “There is a very significant group…of cohabiting couples who when they break up have no remedy at all,” Bennett said, describing nonmonetary contributions and implied agreements that can leave a partner with nothing.
Members pressed for guardrails. Representative McQueen and others asked whether the bill should set a minimum duration of cohabitation before claims could be filed; Bennett and the sponsor said the Uniform Law Commission intentionally did not include an arbitrary time threshold, arguing courts are best placed to determine whether a couple is functioning as a couple in context. Representative Hall raised questions about nontraditional family structures such as polyamorous households and whether the law would or should cover those arrangements; witnesses said the draft addresses a two-person cohabiting relationship.
Representatives expressed concerns about potential harassment suits and increased litigation in family courts, the administrative burden on courts and the practical risks for parties who may lack resources to contest claims. Members asked about statute-of-limitations rules, pro se forms and whether the Supreme Court or courts should be directed to prepare forms; Bennett said unwritten-contract claims would generally carry a shorter limitations period starting when cohabitation ends, and noted the Supreme Court’s existing pro se resources.
Representative Martinez recommended rolling the bill for further work with committee members and staff to craft narrower language and address the identified concerns; Representative Little agreed to work with colleagues on amendments. The committee chair accepted the sponsor’s request to roll the bill for additional drafting and stakeholder input.
Votes at a glance: no final committee vote on this bill; sponsor requested the bill be rolled for further amendment and committee approved the request to hold/roll the measure for revision.
