Toward a Private Law of Intimates' Obligations

When former cohabitants ask courts to distribute property at the end of a nonmarital relationship, they usually lose--even when the partners were as economically intertwined as spouses. Family law scholars have traditionally criticized these cases in terms of longstanding gendered ideas about family relationships. This Article proposes a complementary account at the intersection of feminist and private law theory: that the law of voluntary obligations is not adequately developed to protect intimates' cooperation. Although marital status law aims to safeguard thick cooperation between spouses and contract law captures a range of more market-based cooperation, for historically contingent reasons, little doctrine has evolved to govern cohabitants' cooperation. As a result, the current law of cohabitants frequently fails to further important purposes of private law writ large, including facilitating joint projects, providing redress for harm, and preventing exploitation.&nbsp; <br> <br> Scholars and legal decision-makers should develop private law doctrine commensurate with the understanding that less market-based cooperation is both commonplace and deserving of legal protection. This project would improve the resolution of disputes between all intimates: not just unmarried partners, but also other family members, friends, and those in relations of interdependence or trust. It also presents opportunities to build a more nuanced and complete private law and private law theory.