Trying to fit a square peg into a round hole
In Colorado, non-married partners, same sex or male and female have not had any statutory protection when they go to dissolve a long term relationship that has operated on much the same terms as a marriage. One partner may have not worked for years during the relationship or the incomes of the two parties may be greatly divergent. They may have shared bank accounts, owned property together, have debt together. Yet at the time of dissolution, if there is a disagreement, the only legal remedies available are a stretch of law that was created for a different purpose such as implied contract law or the equitable remedy of unjust enrichment. Attorneys in domestic partnership cases have also tried to fashion alternative remedies out of the law of constructive and resulting trusts or corporate laws involving joint ventures. However, nothing is specific to an unmarried domestic couple and there is no statutory law to look to as there is for married partners who divorce.

So, people in non-marital domestic partnerships do not have a clear avenue to clear up their disputes. In most cases, what is available does not end up with a result based in equity.

Best Case at the present time
At the moment, the best a non-married couple can do is draft up a Co-Habitation agreement/ Domestic Partnership Agreement that speaks specifically to how assets and debts will be divided if the relationship ends. Contract law in Colorado is available to support this type of agreement.

New Case Law is slowly expanding rights
Slowly there are new Supreme Court cases that seem to support better arguments for dealing equitably with the break up of a domestic partnership. In late 2008 the Colorado Supreme Court ruled in the case of Lewis v. Lewis. The Lewis case discussed the equitable remedy of unjust enrichment as it applies to close family members or confidants. Confidants can be applied to non-married partners. The Lewis case rules that if there was a "mutual purpose" between confidants and one party has profited from a significant deviation from that mutual purpose, then that party is unjustly enriched.

If non-married partners have the mutual purpose to financially or otherwise support the domestic unit, take care of each other for life, and join their resources for the benefit of both, then upon dissolution of their relationship, a court could look to see if one party is unjustly enriched from the deviation of that mutual purpose.

This is the best legal argument yet for an equitable distribution of assets for a non-married domestic partnership in Colorado.

We have not seen a domestic partnership test case yet on this new and expanded legal theory of unjust enrichment. The Lewis case did not involve a domestic partnership. It involved a dispute amongst family members. However, you can certainly make the argument that a domestic partnership is a relationship between confidants.

Hope for the Future
Hopefully, somewhere in the near future, the legislature or the courts will address this inequity that people dissolving domestic partnerships endure. Until then we will continue to look for ways to utilize the laws that now exist to enable domestic partnerships to equitably dissolve following a break up.

Trying to fit a square peg into a round hole
In Colorado, non-married partners, same sex or male and female have not had any statutory protection when they go to dissolve a long term relationship that has operated on much the same terms as a marriage. One partner may have not worked for years during the relationship or the incomes of the two parties may be greatly divergent. They may have shared bank accounts, owned property together, have debt together. Yet at the time of dissolution, if there is a disagreement, the only legal remedies available are a stretch of law that was created for a different purpose such as implied contract law or the equitable remedy of unjust enrichment. Attorneys in domestic partnership cases have also tried to fashion alternative remedies out of the law of constructive and resulting trusts or corporate laws involving joint ventures. However, nothing is specific to an unmarried domestic couple and there is no statutory law to look to as there is for married partners who divorce.

So, people in non-marital domestic partnerships do not have a clear avenue to clear up their disputes. In most cases, what is available does not end up with a result based in equity.

Best Case at the present time
At the moment, the best a non-married couple can do is draft up a Co-Habitation agreement/ Domestic Partnership Agreement that speaks specifically to how assets and debts will be divided if the relationship ends. Contract law in Colorado is available to support this type of agreement.

New Case Law is slowly expanding rights
Slowly there are new Supreme Court cases that seem to support better arguments for dealing equitably with the break up of a domestic partnership. In late 2008 the Colorado Supreme Court ruled in the case of Lewis v. Lewis. The Lewis case discussed the equitable remedy of unjust enrichment as it applies to close family members or confidants. Confidants can be applied to non-married partners. The Lewis case rules that if there was a "mutual purpose" between confidants and one party has profited from a significant deviation from that mutual purpose, then that party is unjustly enriched.

If non-married partners have the mutual purpose to financially or otherwise support the domestic unit, take care of each other for life, and join their resources for the benefit of both, then upon dissolution of their relationship, a court could look to see if one party is unjustly enriched from the deviation of that mutual purpose.

This is the best legal argument yet for an equitable distribution of assets for a non-married domestic partnership in Colorado.

We have not seen a domestic partnership test case yet on this new and expanded legal theory of unjust enrichment. The Lewis case did not involve a domestic partnership. It involved a dispute amongst family members. However, you can certainly make the argument that a domestic partnership is a relationship between confidants.

Hope for the Future
Hopefully, somewhere in the near future, the legislature or the courts will address this inequity that people dissolving domestic partnerships endure. Until then we will continue to look for ways to utilize the laws that now exist to enable domestic partnerships to equitably dissolve following a break up.