[275] 
COMMENTS 
LONDON S. BALLARD* 
Unmarried Cohabitants: How the United States 
Is Still Not Protecting Same-Sex Couples 
Introduction ...................................................................................... 276 
I. Current Demographic Trends in Family Formation .............. 277 
II. Current Legal Remedies ........................................................ 278 
A. Establish a Retroactive Marriage Application Right ..... 278 
B. Contract Claims ............................................................. 281 
III. Legal Frameworks for Cohabitation in Other Countries ....... 282 
A. Demographic Background ............................................. 283 
B. The Scandinavian Countries .......................................... 284 
1. Denmark ................................................................... 284 
2. Norway ..................................................................... 285 
3. Sweden ..................................................................... 286 
C. Countries from Former Yugoslavia ............................... 288 
1. Soviet Republic of Slovenia ..................................... 288 
2. Croatia ...................................................................... 289 
3. Bosnia and Herzegovina ........................................... 289 
4. Serbia ........................................................................ 290 
D. Australia ......................................................................... 290 
E. The PACS of France and Belgium ................................ 291 
1. France. ...................................................................... 291 
2. Belgium .................................................................... 294 
* London S. Ballard is a JD candidate at the University of Oregon School of Law. She is
anticipated to graduate in May 2019. She graduated from the University of Portland in 2016 
with a Bachelor of Arts in History and a Bachelor of Arts in French with a minor in Hellenic 
Studies. A special thank you to Professor Leslie Harris for her guidance with this Comment 
and for always being there to strongly debate the much-needed reforms for our legal system. 
Ms. Ballard recognizes non-binary genders but for clarity uses she/he and his/her throughout 
this Comment. 
276 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 20, 275 
F. Canada ........................................................................... 296 
1. Alberta ...................................................................... 296 
2. Quebec ...................................................................... 298 
3. British Columbia ...................................................... 299 
4. Ontario ...................................................................... 299 
IV. Legal Frameworks Summary ................................................ 300 
Conclusion ....................................................................................... 302 
INTRODUCTION 
ame-sex couples often face discrimination throughout their daily 
lives. Although the United States is making efforts to remove that 
discrimination, many problems still exist and disrupt same-sex couples’ 
lives. For example, when sharing property, the name on the property’s 
legal title of certificate often dictates the owner(s) without considering if, 
and with whom, they live. Unmarried cohabitants might not be protected 
under zoning ordinances that only protect “traditional families” connected 
by blood, marriage, or adoption. Unmarried cohabitants might struggle to 
bring inheritance claims if his/her partner dies without a will. For tax 
purposes, unmarried cohabitant couples are often classified as “single,” 
so they are unable to reap marital tax benefits like their married 
counterparts. These are just a few examples of the legal drawbacks facing 
unmarried cohabitants. 
As societal trends continue to shift away from marriage and toward 
cohabitation, this Comment seeks to highlight that although individuals 
may be opposed to entering a marriage, many still desire marital-like 
benefits to recognize their own union. The purpose of this Comment is 
to evaluate the legal rights that should attach to unmarried cohabitants 
through a default scheme that considers property rights, tax benefits, 
inheritance claims, and other legal benefits that are currently only 
available to marital relationships. Additionally, this Comment 
evaluates an opt-in scheme for unmarried cohabitants to enter into that 
allows them to grant more rights to his/her partner than automatically 
given in the default scheme. 
This Comment is broken into four parts. Part 1 describes important 
demographic trends regarding family formation: marriage rates are 
declining while cohabitation rates are increasing, especially for same-
sex couples. Part 2 examines two current legal frameworks that support 
unmarried same-sex cohabitants’ claims against each other in the event 
they break up. Part 3 describes legal frameworks in other countries that 
regulate unmarried cohabitants’ rights during their relationships and at 
the dissolution of their relationships. This third section begins by 
S 
2018] Unmarried Cohabitants: How the United States Is 277 
Still Not Protecting Same-Sex Couples 
looking at the first countries that implemented legal cohabitation 
frameworks. Then, the focus turns to other countries’ frameworks and 
identifies the benefits and drawbacks of each system. Part 4 of this 
Comment proposes the type of legal framework the United States 
should adopt to protect and enforce unmarried cohabitants’ legal rights 
and obligations. 
I 
CURRENT DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS IN FAMILY FORMATION 
Today, in the United States, overall marriage rates have been 
declining.1 A 2010 Pew Research Center poll found “about four-in-ten 
Americans (39%) said they agree that marriage as an institution is 
becoming obsolete.”2 The Pew Research Center’s study on love and 
marriage in 2014 found that marriage rates have declined by 9 percent 
in the last twenty-five years.3 Meanwhile, the number of individuals 
cohabitating with an unmarried partner has increased by 29 percent 
since 2007.4 From 2000 to 2010, the percentage of unmarried 
cohabitants grew by 41 percent in the United States.5 
In 2017, two years after the United States legalized same-sex 
marriage, the Pew Research Center conducted a survey of LGBT 
couples to analyze how many couples took advantage of their 
newfound legal right to marry.6 Of the total cohabitating couples, only 
61 percent were legally married,7 although this number grew by 33 
percent post-Obergefell.8 this number still highlights that thirty-nine 
percent of cohabitating same-sex partners are not married.9 
1 Abigail Geiger & Gretchen Livingston, 8 Facts About Love and Marriage in America, 
PEW RES. CTR. (Feb. 13, 2018), http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/02/ 13/8-facts-
about-love-and-marriage/. 
2 D’Vera Cohn et al., Barely Half of U.S. Adults Are Married—A Record Low, PEW RES. 
CTR. (Dec. 14, 2011), http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2011/12/Marriage-Decline.pdf; 
see also The Decline of Marriage and Rise of New Families, PEW RES. CTR. (Nov. 18, 2010), 
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2010/11/pew-social-trends-2010-families.pdf. 
3 Geiger & Livingston, supra note 1. 
4 Id. 
5 John Waggoner, Marital Rights for Unmarried Partners, 226–27. AM. L. INST.; 
PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF FAMILY DISSOLUTION: ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
907–43 (LexisNexis ed., 2002). 
6 David Masci et al., 5 Facts About Same-Sex Marriage, PEW RES. CTR. 1 (June 26, 
2017), http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/26/same-sex-marriage/. 
7 Id. 
8 See generally Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015). 
9 Masci, supra note 6. 
278 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 20, 275 
That 39 percent represents the unmarried couples who reside in a 
category without legally recognized protective rights for their 
relationships. These couples do not have a legal framework that defines 
their rights in their relationships regarding taxes, property division, 
welfare benefits, legal standing to raise claims, and other marital 
benefits. The United States needs to adopt a default legal framework to 
give legal recognition to these couples during their relationships. 
Additionally, this legal framework needs to account for property 
division, spousal support rights, and custody rights in the event the 
couples separate.10 Without these protections, unmarried cohabitants 
are treated as though their relationships never existed. 
II 
CURRENT LEGAL REMEDIES 
Many couples, particularly many same-sex couples, prefer not to 
marry and choose to remain as unmarried cohabitants despite the legal 
protections marriage offers. As Lawrence Waggoner has pointed out, 
marriage does not just grant a marriage certificate; instead, Waggoner 
argues: 
[M]arriage carries significant psychological, health, and financial
benefits. Marriage also creates federal and state rights, obligations,
and immunities—including social security, taxation, spousal
communication and testimonial privileges, obligation of support, the
right to a property settlement and perhaps the possibility of alimony
in divorce, a large intestate share for a surviving spouse, and
protection against disinheritance.11
Unmarried cohabitants currently only have the following two legal 
means of securing some or all of these rights for themselves: (1) 
establish that they should have the legal rights of marriage even though 
they are not ceremonially or common law married; or (2) establish that 
they have contractual rights against each other. 
A. Establish a Retroactive Marriage Application Right
Some same-sex cohabitants have sought to be treated as if they were 
married even though they did not participate in a ceremonial marriage 
or enter into a common law marriage. To be successful, a claimant must 
make two claims: (1) that he or she has standing to sue and (2) that he 
10 The term “separate” in this Comment does not refer to a legal separation. Instead, it 
denotes that the cohabitants wish to no longer exist as a couple. 
11 Waggoner, supra note 5, at 226–27. 
2018] Unmarried Cohabitants: How the United States Is 279 
Still Not Protecting Same-Sex Couples 
or she “would have been married but for” the legal prohibition against 
same-sex marriage.12 This section describes three cases in which a 
person sought to bring a retroactive marriage application claim. 
The first case illustrates the “would have married but for” theory. 
The second case examines how that theory typically plays out in court, 
and the third case examines the rare instance when this method is 
successful. 
Mueller v. Tepler is a 2014 Connecticut case where a same-sex 
partner raised a spousal loss of consortium claim upon the death of her 
partner.13 The couple had never been married.14 While the federal 
government did not legally recognize same-sex marriage in 2014, 
Connecticut had legally recognized same-sex marriage since 2008.15 
The court held that the same-sex partner could raise a loss of 
consortium claim but only if the partner alleged that the two would 
have been married had they legally been allowed to marry.16 The court 
decided that unmarried cohabitants have no right to bring a loss of 
consortium claim when they refuse to marry.17 Therefore, the surviving 
partner lost because there was a six-year time period before the death 
when the couple could have legally married in Connecticut. 
Three years later, in 2017, a federal district court in California 
reached a similar conclusion in Ferry v. De Longhi Am. Inc.18 Mr. Ferry 
sued for the wrongful death of his partner, claiming that the two “would 
have been married but for” the legal prohibition against same-sex 
marriage.19 However, his claim failed because by 2017, same-sex 
marriage was legally recognized by the federal government and in all 
states.20 In fact, same-sex marriage had been legally recognized in 
California since 2008.21 Mr. Ferry’s claim failed because state law did 
not prevent him from marrying his partner; instead, he chose not to 
marry his partner.22 
12 Mueller v. Tepler, 312 Conn. 631, 633 (2014). 
13 Id. at 634. 
14 Id. 
15 Robert D. McFadden, Gay Marriage Is Ruled Legal in Connecticut, N.Y. TIMES (Oct. 
10, 2008), https://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/11/nyregion/11marriage.html. 
16 Mueller, 312 Conn. 631 at 661. 
17 Id. 
18 Ferry v. De Longhi Am. Inc., 275 F. Supp. 3d 940 (N.D. Ca. 2017). 
19 Id. at 945.  
20 See generally Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015). 
21 In re Marriage Cases.  
22 Id.  
280 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 20, 275 
In contrast, in 2016, a federal district court in Texas ruled in favor 
of a similar claim. In Ranolls v. Dewling,23 a lesbian couple had been 
together for more than eighteen years but had never married.24 In fact, 
the couple had separated just before Ms. Ranolls was killed in an 
automobile accident in 2015.25 Despite the couple’s separation, Ms. 
Hogan brought a claim against the estate as the surviving spouse on the 
theory that the two “would have married but for” the prohibition on 
same-sex marriage.26 
Unlike Connecticut and California, Texas did not recognize same-
sex marriage until the Supreme Court decided Obergefell v. Hodges in 
2015. Ms. Ranolls was killed in March 2015, several months before 
Obergefell was decided.27 Therefore, the couple legally could not have 
married in Texas at the time she died. For this reason, the court found 
in favor of Ms. Hogan.28 Because Texas recognizes common law 
marriage, the court retroactively applied a common law marriage to 
Hogan and Ranolls based on the eighteen years they spent as unmarried 
cohabitants.29 Since there is no common law divorce, the court found 
the two were still married when Ms. Ranolls died. 
Ultimately, the cases described above show how this method of 
“would have married but for” is ineffective at securing rights for 
unmarried cohabitants. As more time passes with same-sex marriage 
legally recognized in the United States, the “would have married but 
for” theory loses weight because there is no longer a valid “but for.” 
Instead, this theory provides a loophole for courts to continually deny 
unmarried cohabitants rights under the premise that they could have 
secured their rights by getting married. The court does so by only 
legally protecting the brief period of time before Obergefell was 
handed down which changed the law in only a few states that still 
refused to recognize same-sex marriage legally. Those few states are 
the only states where same-sex couples could successfully bring a 
“would have married but for” claim. 
23 Ranolls v. Dewling, 223 F. Supp. 3d 613 (E.D. Tex. 2016). 
24 Id. at 615.  
25 Id.  
26 Id.  
27 Id.  
28 Id. at 625.  
29 Id.  
2018] Unmarried Cohabitants: How the United States Is 281 
Still Not Protecting Same-Sex Couples 
B. Contract Claims
Unmarried cohabitants have the power to protect themselves via 
contract. These contracts, however, often grant unequal shares of 
property and/or support between the couples due to power dynamic 
disparities.30 Often, one partner has more property, which makes him 
or her the superior partner, making it difficult to separate the property 
in the event of dissolution.31 
As Ann Estin stated: 
by refusing to assimilate cohabitation to the norms of marriage, the 
courts define ordinary cohabitation as a relationship in which the 
parties do not acquire rights or take on obligations to each other. In 
most states, the sharing norms that apply to property and support 
claims at the dissolution of a marriage do not apply.32 
Given the heightened requirements, very few unmarried cohabitants 
successfully raise contract claims.33 
In the United States, to bring an enforceable contract claim involving 
unmarried cohabitants, the plaintiff must plead and prove the following 
elements: (1) the parties had an agreement giving the plaintiff support 
and property rights; (2) there was sufficient consideration outside of 
their sexual relationship; (3) terms of the contract are sufficiently 
ascertainable to permit relief granted; and (4) plaintiff has suffered an 
injury due to breach of contract.34 
Now, the opposing partner can bring the following defenses to 
negate liability: (1) there was no agreement to give support or property 
rights; (2) the agreement the two had gave the plaintiff less than 
plaintiff’s alleged claimed interest; or (3) the meretricious nature of the 
agreement precludes enforcement.35 
The first case where an unmarried partner sued for property rights at 
the end of a cohabiting relationship on a contract claim was Marvin v. 
Marvin.36 The Marvin case was brought by a woman who alleged a 
30 Waggoner, supra note 5, at 227. 
31 Id.  
32 Ann Laquer Estin, Ordinary Cohabitation, 76 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 1381, 1391 
(2001). 
33 Id. at 1403. 
34 Kristen Tungstol, Cause of Action by Same-Sex or Heterosexual Unmarried 
Cohabitant to Enforce Agreement or Understanding Regarding Support or Division of 
Property on Dissolution of Relationship, 35 CAUSES OF ACTION 2d 295, § 5. 
35 Id.  
36 Marvin v. Marvin, 18 Cal. 3d 660 (1976). 
282 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 20, 275 
contractual claim to the property the couple shared.37 The alleged 
couple had lived together for seven years; she stayed at home as the 
classic homemaker, and he continued to work as an actor who brought 
in the money.38 After seven years, he ended the relationship and refused 
to continue supporting her or sharing the property.39 She brought a 
property claim to enforce an implied contract regarding their agreement 
to share the property equally.40 The court found that she had stated a 
contract claim,41 but on remand, she lost by failing to prove a contract 
existed for property division.42  
Even today, alleged contract claims against ex-partners are often 
unsuccessful, given the type of relationship involved. In 2010, the 
Illinois Supreme court heard the case of Blumenthal v. Brewer.43 Ms. 
Blumenthal brought a partition action on the family home she shared 
with Ms. Brewer in their unmarried cohabitant relationship.44 The 
lesbian couple had lived together for years like a married couple, and 
even raised children together.45 However, the relationship ended with 
disastrous property consequences because the two never elected to 
marry.46 The Illinois Supreme court stated that “unmarried individuals 
may make express or implied contracts with one another, and such 
contracts will be enforceable if they are not based on a relationship 
indistinguishable from marriage.”47 Based on that position, the Illinois 
Supreme Court declined to extend property rights to unmarried 
cohabitants based on contract claims.48 
III 
LEGAL FRAMEWORKS FOR COHABITATION IN OTHER COUNTRIES 
This Part of the Comment examines various legal frameworks, 
starting with the first countries to adopt a legal protective framework 
37 Id. at 666. 
38 Id.  
39 Id.  
40 Id.  
41 Id. at 685. 
42 Id.  
43 Blumenthal v. Brewer, 69 N.E.3d 834 (Ill. 2010). 
44 Id. at 839.  
45 Id.  
46 Id.  
47 Id. at 860.  
48 Id.  
2018] Unmarried Cohabitants: How the United States Is 283 
Still Not Protecting Same-Sex Couples 
for unmarried cohabitants: the Scandinavian countries49 and the former 
Yugoslavian countries.50 Next, the Comment examines the benefits and 
drawbacks of some current frameworks, beginning with Australia, then 
France and Belgium’s PACS-based system, and lastly four Canadian 
provinces.  
A. Demographic Background
International cohabitation trends show both sides of the spectrum of 
those who elect to marry and those who elect not to marry. A 2012 
study found that in Asia and the Middle East, unmarried cohabitants 
made up less than 2 percent of the population.51 In Europe, unmarried 
cohabitant rates varied slightly.52 Poland, Spain, and Italy did not have 
high rates of cohabitation, whereas France and Sweden had some of the 
highest cohabitation rates (around 18 percent of the populations).53 The 
same study found that Colombia had the highest rate of unmarried 
cohabitation, with 31 percent of its population engaged in unmarried 
cohabitant relationships.54  
The Office for National Statistics’ 2017 study analyzed families in 
the United Kingdom. Of the 19 million families surveyed, 3.3 million 
were unmarried cohabitants—the second most common family type.55 
Those 3.3 million families do not have the same legal rights as married 
couples in the United Kingdom. Currently, the United Kingdom is 
debating the Cohabitation Rights Bill that would grant unmarried 
cohabitants property rights and support benefits.56 Until that bill is 
49 Noack, Bernhardt, Wiik, & Lyngstad, The Realization of Marriage Plans among 
Cohabitating Couples in Scandinavia (2011), http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/ 
download;jsessionid=392FC22C89C48802E2A9C92D95972C55?doi=10.1.1.695.4413& 
rep=rep1&type=pdf. 
50 See Petar Sarcevic, Cohabitation without Marriage: The Yugoslavian Experience, 29 
AM. J. COMP. L. 315 (1981). 
51 W. Bradford Wilcox & Carlos Cavallè, The Sustainable Demographic Dividend: 
What Do Marriage & Fertility Have To Do with the Economy? SOCIAL TRENDS INSTITUTE, 
29 (2012), http://sustaindemographicdividend.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/SDD-2011-
Final.pdf. 
52 Id. 
53 Id. 
54 Id. 
55 OFF. FOR NAT’L STAT, Number of Families in the UK Continues to Grow, with 
Cohabitating Couple Families Growing the Fastest, in FAMILIES AND HOUSEHOLDS 2017 
(Nov. 8, 2017), https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsand 
marriages/families/bulletins/familiesandhouseholds/2017#number-of-families-in-the-uk-
continues-to-grow-with-cohabiting-couple-families-growing-the-fastest.  
56 Id. 
284 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 20, 275 
passed, unmarried cohabitants in the United Kingdom have no legal 
marital-like rights.  
B. The Scandinavian Countries
The Scandinavian countries were among the first to adopt a legal 
framework for unmarried cohabitation. These frameworks focused 
mainly on support rights by granting spousal support and ensuring child 
protections if a couple separated. Norway and Sweden introduced 
gender-neutral marriage in 2008 and 2009.57 
1. Denmark
The Danish Act on Registered Partnerships governs unmarried
cohabitants.58 To register as partners, both individuals must 
permanently reside in Denmark.59 The registration has the same legal 
effect as a marriage contract.60 Thus, the Danish provisions governing 
marriage apply similarly to registered partners.61 Both residents must 
be single to enter a partnership.62 If either resident is not single, each 
person can be imprisoned.63  
Registered partnerships are terminated the same way marriages are 
terminated.64 The partnerships can be annulled by judicial decree or 
ended by divorce.65 To divorce, the spouses must legally separate for 
at least a year.66 The only exceptions that can bypass the legal 
separation period are if one of the partners was violent during the 
relationship or was a bigamist.67  
When a partnership ends, maintenance payments may be available, 
dependent upon the circumstances.68 Maintenance ends when the 
57 Ingrid Lund-Andersen, Registered and Unmarried Partners in Denmark: Recent 
Legal Developments, INT’L SURV. FAM. L. 157, 157 (2011).  
58 Id.  
59 Id.  
60 The Danish Registered Partnership Act, D/341-H-ML Act No. 372 § 3 (1989), http:// 
www.qrd.org/qrd/world/europe/denmark/registered.partnership.act.with.amendments. 
61 Id. 
62 Id. 
63 Id. 
64 The Formation and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Mar. 9, 1999), 
http://host.uniroma3.it/progetti/cedir/cedir/Lex-doc/Dk_marrig.pdf. 
65 Id. at pt. 3, § 23. 
66 Id. at pt. 4, §31. 
67 Id. at pt. 4, § 35. 
68 Id. at pt. 5, § 45. 
2018] Unmarried Cohabitants: How the United States Is 285 
Still Not Protecting Same-Sex Couples 
entitled person remarries or if either spouse dies.69 An ex-partner may 
also have a right to a spouse’s pension.70 If the partners are unable to 
agree on how to divide their property, the court may enter its own 
decree dividing the property as it sees fit.71 
In 2007, Denmark reformed its Inheritance Act, giving unmarried 
cohabitants the right to make an “expanded cohabitation will.”72 This 
development allowed cohabitants to inherit from each other as though 
they were married.73 Unmarried cohabitants may inherit through three 
forms: (1) by intestacy rules; (2) by probate court order; and (3) by 
will.74  
Before 2010, this Act prevented same-sex couples from adopting a 
child together, sharing joint custody, or marrying in a church.75 In 2010, 
Denmark repealed the prohibition on joint custody and adoption rights 
for same-sex couples.76 Now, registered partners may be approved as 
adopters if they have lived together for two and a half years.77  
2. Norway
Unmarried cohabitation was illegal until 1972, when the prohibition
was abolished.78 Once the prohibition was lifted, people slowly began 
cohabitating without marriage.79 In 1977, unmarried cohabitants 
totaled 5 percent of the population.80 By 1996, that total had grown to 
24 percent.81 In 1993, Norway passed the Registered Partnership Act, 
which allowed for same-sex partnerships.82 This act was repealed in 
69 Id. at pt. 5, § 49. 
70 Id. at pt. 3, § 28. 
71 Id. at pt. 5, § 55. 
72 Lund-Andersen, supra note 57, at 158. 
73 Id.  
74 Id. at 162. 
75 Id. at 159.  
76 Id.  
77 Id.  
78 John Erikson, Unmarried Cohabitation and Family Policy in Norway, 11 INT’L. REV. 
SOC. 64, 64 (2001). 
79 Id.  
80 Id.  
81 Id. at 65.  
82 Marriage and Cohabitation, MINISTRY OF CHILDREN AND EQUITY, 
https://www.regjeringen.no/en/topics/families-and-children/innsiktsartikler/marriage-and-
cohabitation1/id670495/ (last updated Jan. 27, 2015). 
286 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 20, 275 
2008 with the passage of the Marriage Act, leaving only marriage or 
cohabitation as options for a couple.83  
A cohabitant relationship is formed when two individuals live 
together without formal marriage. This union exists for heterosexual 
and homosexual couples.84 No regulating contract exists for this 
relationship.85 Cohabitants are considered independent individuals for 
finances and do not have spousal support obligations.86 Neither partner 
is liable for the other’s debts, and cohabitants generally do not inherit 
from one another.87 Although they generally do not retain inheritance 
rights, such rights can be granted by a mutual will if the cohabitants 
have joint children or if they have lived together for five years.88 To 
protect children, cohabitants are treated as married spouses under the 
Children Act.89 This Act enforces parental responsibility by assigning 
rights and duties to the parents.90  
If the couple separates, each partner takes his/her separate property 
unless there is a contract specifying otherwise.91 Without a contract, the 
property is divided by legal title.92 A separation does not relieve either 
cohabitant from parental obligations or child support.93 
3. Sweden
In 2003, Sweden published updates to the Swedish Cohabitation
Act.94 This Act minimally protects a couple’s joint home and joint 
household goods and only applies to married or registered couples.95  
83 Id. 
84 Cohabitation, NEW IN NORWAY, http://www.nyinorge.no/en/Familiegjenforening/ 
New-in-Norway/Families-and-children-in-Norway-/Families-and-children-in-Norway/ 
Cohabitation/ (last visited June 29, 2018). 
85 Id. 
86 Id. 
87 Id. 
88 Id. 
89 The Children Act: Act of 8 April 1981 No. 7 Relating to Children and Parents, ch. 2, 
§ 3, MINISTRY OF CHILDREN AND EQUITY (Apr. 6, 2017), https://www.regjeringen.no/en/
dokumenter/the-children-act/id448389/.
90 Id. at ch. 3, § 10. 
91 The Formation and Dissolution of Marriage Act, supra note 64, at pt. 5, § 56.  
92 Id.  
93 Id.  
94 Act (2003:276) on Cohabitation (Cohabitees Act), in National Legislation: Sweden, 
http://ceflonline.net/wp-content/uploads/Sweden-IR-Legislation.pdf (last visited Mar. 30, 
2018).  
95 Id. 
2018] Unmarried Cohabitants: How the United States Is 287 
Still Not Protecting Same-Sex Couples 
There are three requirements to be cohabitants under Swedish law.96 
First, the couple must permanently live together.97 Second, they must 
live together solely because they are a couple.98 Third, they must share 
in household maintenance and expenses.99 Sweden does not 
discriminate against heterosexual versus same-sex couples but does 
prohibit married or registered partners from entering into another 
union.100  
Sweden’s default property rules apply to registered partnerships.101 
The joint home is the couple’s permanent dwelling.102 Any goods 
purchased during the relationship for home use are legally considered 
joint household goods.103 Any outside property is considered each 
partner’s separate property and may not be divided if the couple breaks 
up.104  
If the couple separates, only the joint home and household goods 
may be divided.105 Neither partner has a right to the other’s bank 
account(s), money investment(s), automobiles, secondary dwellings, or 
other assets.106 Neither partner is liable for the other partner’s debt.107 
However, the partners can mutually contract to keep the joint home and 
household goods separate property, and therefore, not subject to 
property division rules.108 
There are five methods to legally end a registered partnership.109 
First, the contract ends if either partner marries a different person 
individually.110 Second, the contract ends if the couple mutually 
decides to separate.111 Third, if either partner dies, the contract ends.112 
Fourth, a partner seeking to end the relationship may apply for 
96 Id. 
97 Id. 
98 Id. 
99 Id. 
100 Id. 
101 Id. 
102 Id. 
103 Id. 
104 Id. 
105 Id. 
106 Id. 
107 Id. 
108 Id. 
109 Id. 
110 Id. 
111 Id. 
112 Id. 
288 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 20, 275 
termination through an estate administrator and request a property 
division.113 Fifth, one partner may initiate a court action for property 
division.114  
Upon dissolution, each ex-partner has one year to request a property 
division.115 The joint home must have been purchased together to be 
legally considered the joint home.116 If one partner purchased the home 
separately, it will not be eligible for property division, 117 nor will the 
other partner have a right to recover home maintenance expenses.118 
Contrasted to the joint home, all joint household goods are available 
for property division, regardless of who purchased the item(s).119 If 
purchased together, the joint home and any mortgage debt will be 
divisible property. 120 First, the debt is deducted and the remaining 
home value is divided equally.121 The default property division is 
equitable distribution, but this can be modified on a case-by-case 
basis.122 
If the dissolution is caused by a partner’s death, only the surviving 
partner may request a property division.123 The surviving partner must 
request property division before the estate is finalized.124 
C. Countries from Former Yugoslavia
1. Soviet Republic of Slovenia
The former Yugoslavian countries began developing legal
unmarried cohabitant frameworks in the 1970s.125 In 1976, the Soviet 
Republic of Slovenia passed Article 12 of the Marital and Other Family 
Relations of 1976, which regulated different-sex cohabitants.126 After 
cohabitating for a substantial time, Article 12 would consider the 
couple legally married so long as the union would not be invalidated 
113 Id. 
114 Id. 
115 Id. 
116 Id. 
117 Id. 
118 Id. 
119 Id. 
120 Id. 
121 Id. 
122 Id. at 5.  
123 Id.  
124 Id.  
125 See Sarcevic, supra note 50, at 315. 
126 Id. at 321. 
2018] Unmarried Cohabitants: How the United States Is 289 
Still Not Protecting Same-Sex Couples 
for any reasons.127 With marital recognition, the legislator equalized 
inheritance rights for married persons and unmarried cohabitants.128 No 
other rights were granted to unmarried cohabitants.129 Kosovo, in 1974, 
was the only other former Yugoslavian country that granted inheritance 
rights to unmarried cohabitants.130 
2. Croatia
In 1978, Croatia modified Article 7 in its law on marriage and family
relations act by assigning unmarried cohabitants mutual support 
obligations and property rights.131 Only heterosexual couples qualified 
under Article 7 as “unmarried cohabitants.”132 Any property acquired 
during their relationship was legally considered joint property.133 
If a couple separated, their joint property was divided according to 
the same property division rules that governed divorce (Article 293 
II).134 An unemployable partner who could not support him/herself 
could bring a support claim within one year of the separation against 
his/her ex-partner (Articles 248 and 254).135 If a support claim was 
filed, the court had discretion to approve or reject the claim on a case-
by-case basis.136 The court also retained the discretion to limit or extend 
any existing support obligations.137  
3. Bosnia and Herzegovina
In 1980, Bosnia and Herzegovina updated Article 14 of the Law on
Marriage and Family Relation Act of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia 
and Herzegovina and granted unmarried cohabitants property rights 
and mutual support obligations.138 Upon dissolution, unemployable ex-
cohabitants unable to support themselves could file a support claim.139 
Each partner had three years after dissolution to file a support claim 
127 Id.  
128 See generally id. 
129 Id.  
130 Id. at 323.  
131 Id. at 322.  
132 Id.  
133 Id.  
134 Id.  
135 Id. at 322–23.  
136 Id. at 321 n. 34.  
137 Id.  
138 Id. at 322.  
139 Id. at 322 n. 37.  
290 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 20, 275 
with the court.140 The court reserved the discretion to accept or reject 
each support claim on a case-by-case basis.141 
4. Serbia
Serbia modified its unmarried cohabitation rights in 1980.142
Although these relationships were still restricted to heterosexual 
couples, each partner now had a support right upon dissolution.143 The 
court retained sole discretion to accept or reject and modify support 
claims on a case-by-case basis.144 Joint property was divided according 
to marital property division rules unless the court modified the division 
on a case-by-case basis.145 
Serbia had two additional cohabitant protection rights not found in 
the other former Yugoslavian countries.146 First, no designated time 
frame existed for support claims when the couple had mutual shared 
children.147 Second, in case their relationship did not last, unmarried 
cohabitants could not waive potential support claims in the beginning 
of their relationship.148  
D. Australia
Australia’s implementation of the De Facto Relationship Act of 
1996 created a legal framework for unmarried cohabitants.149 The 
couple must create a written contract signed by both parties to create a 
legally recognized cohabitant relationship.150 In this contract, the 
parties can stipulate to their preferred property division and financial 
obligations.151  
The cohabitant relationship can be terminated by the couple or by 
the court.152 For the couple to end the relationship, they must submit a 
written agreement stating their intent to end the union.153 By default, 
140 Id.  
141 Id.  
142 Id. at 324.  
143 Id.  
144 Id.  
145 Id. at 325.  
146 Id.  
147 Id.  
148 Id. at 324.  
149 De Facto Relationships Act 1996 pt 2 s 5 (Austl.). 
150 Id.  
151 Id.  
152 Id. at pt 2 s 7. 
153 Id.  
2018] Unmarried Cohabitants: How the United States Is 291 
Still Not Protecting Same-Sex Couples 
the court retains the right to revoke the cohabitant contract if it sees 
fit.154 The court may act on its own initiative or on the request of one 
partner who wants out.155 However, in the original cohabitant contract, 
the couple may remove the court’s ability to end their relationship.156  
At the end of the relationship, each partner has a property division 
claim provided three requirements are met.157 First, the property 
division request must be brought in the same location where the 
cohabitation contract was granted.158 Second, the couple must have 
resided in that same location for a substantial period of time.159 The 
substantial period of time requirement is dependent on the 
relationship’s duration.160 Third, the relationship must have either 
existed for at least three years or the couple had a child during their 
relationship.161 If the requirements are satisfied, each partner has one 
year to submit a property division request.162 However, the court retains 
the discretion to extend the one year time requirement upon a showing 
of good cause.163 Upon application, the court divides the property in an 
equitable fashion, taking into account each partner’s contributions.164 
E. The PACS of France and Belgium
The next Section focuses on the Pacte Civil de Solidarité (PACS) of 
France and the legal framework in Belgium. These two countries were 
concerned with property rights and spousal support rights while 
extending concern about inheritance and tax rights.  
1. France
In 1999, France enacted legislation that created the PACS in
response to the country’s gay and lesbian community growing and 
expressing concerns over their lack of legal rights.165 The legislation 
154 Id.  
155 Id. at pt 2 s 8(2)(a)-(b). 
156 Id. at pt 2 s 8(3). 
157 Id. at pt 3 s 9. 
158 Id. 
159 Id. 
160 Id. 
161 Id. 
162 Id. 
163 Id. 
164 Id. 
165 Ji Hyun Kim et al., The Rise of PACS: A New Type of Commitment from the City of 
Love, 56 WASHBURN L.J. 69, 71 (2017). 
292 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 20, 275 
was built on the presumption that PACS would be a happy medium 
between marriage and dating.166 The PACS is “an act of will that 
immediately creates a legal situation and produces judicial 
consequences rather than a situation of fact to which judicial 
consequences are attached.”167 By entering this contract, two 
individuals create a legal relationship without altering the civil status 
of either party.168 Article 515-1 of the French Code Civil states that a 
PACS is “a contract entered into by two natural persons of age, of 
different sexes or same sexes, to organize their life in common.”169  
There are four requirements that must be met to enter into this 
union.170 First, each person must be the age of majority (18).171 Second, 
each person must have the mental capacity to enter into the union.172 
Third, neither person may be currently married or registered in a PACS 
to another person.173 Fourth, the individuals cannot be related by blood 
or related within three degrees of the other person.174 If the above 
requirements are met, the couple declares their union at the local county 
courthouse where their common household is established.175 
Heterosexual and homosexual couples may register for a PACS 
relationship.176 Although Article 515-1 does not require an intimate 
relationship, the surrounding legislation suggests a relationship sans 
l’intimité would be void.177  
In a PACS, each partner agrees to mutual and material support 
obligations and relationship benefits.178 Each partner is jointly liable 
for any debts (mortgage debts, credit card debt, etc.) contracted into 
during their relationship.179 All real and personal property acquired 
during the relationship is jointly owned, with no right of 
166 Daniel Borrillo, The “Pacte Civil de Solidarité” in France: Midway Between 
Marriage and Cohabitation, in LEGAL RECOGNITION OF SAME-SEX PARTNERSHIPS. A 
STUDY OF NAT’L, EUR., AND INT’L LAW 475, 475 (Hart Publishing, 2001).  
167 Id.  
168 Id.  
169 CODE CIVIL [C. CIV.] [CIVIL CODE] art. 515-1 (Fr.).  
170 Borrillo, supra note 166, at 485.  
171 Id.  
172 Id.  
173 Id.  
174 Id.; CODE CIVIL [C. CIV.] [CIVIL CODE] art. 515-2 (Fr.). 
175 Borrillo, supra note 166, at 485; CODE CIVIL [C. CIV.] [CIVIL CODE] art. 515-3 (Fr.). 
176 Borrillo, supra note 166, at 484.  
177 Kim et al., supra note 165, at 83.  
178 Borrillo, supra note 166, at 485.  
179 Id.  
2018] Unmarried Cohabitants: How the United States Is 293 
Still Not Protecting Same-Sex Couples 
survivorship.180 These property rights can be mutually modified to fit 
the couple’s preferences.181 Any leases held by either partner will 
transfer to the surviving partner in the event of death.182 Health 
insurance benefits also attach to a PACS partner. 183 
Despite the above benefits, the PACS has monetary and familial 
drawbacks.184 For income tax purposes, each partner is taxed as an 
individual for the first two years of the PACS relationship.185 Only after 
the third year of their partnership is the couple taxed jointly for income 
purposes.186 Unlike income tax, the couple is immediately taxed jointly 
on their combined wealth and held jointly and severally liable.187 
The same two-year wait period is required before the couple can 
make tax-free transfers during their lifetime to one another.188 After two 
years, the couple may transfer up to 375,000 francs tax-free.189 No 
automatic inheritance rights attach in a PACS.190 Additionally, if one 
of the partners dies before the two-year wait period is up, the surviving 
partner has no right to an inheritance without a valid will.191 No social 
security benefits pass between PACS partners when one dies.192 
Additionally, surviving partners do not have legal standing to raise 
claims on behalf of their deceased partner in court.193  
PACS partners are also unable to jointly adopt children.194 Only 
married couples can jointly adopt children in France.195 Same-sex 
couples are not allowed to have joint parental rights, nor are they 
allowed access to medically assisted procreation technology.196 
180 Id. 
181 Id. 
182 Id. at 486. 
183 Id. 
184 Id. at 485. 
185 Id. 
186 Id. 
187 Id. 
188 Id. 
189 Id. 
190 Id. 
191 Id. 
192 Id. at 486. 
193 Id. at 487. 
194 CODE CIVIL [C. CIV.] [CIVIL CODE] art. 343 (Fr.). 
195 Id.  
196 Borrillo, supra note 166, at 487.  
294 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 20, 275 
Four methods exist to terminate a PACS.197 First, a PACS will 
immediately terminate if both partners file a declaration with the 
Tribunal d’Instance.198 Second and third, immediate termination occurs 
if one partner marries or dies.199 Fourth, either partner can request to 
end the PACS by giving the Tribunal and his/her partner notice of 
his/her request.200 Once notice is given, and after a three month wait 
period, the PACS is terminated.201  
Many critics have articulated that PACS only confirms the 
inequalities of same-sex couple relationships.202 Daniel Borillo 
described the PACS as:  
a cowardly project, resulting from the difficulty facing gays and 
lesbians in achieving equal rights, either through the legislature or the 
courts. But for this difficulty, how can it be explained that people 
were excited by a law that confines homosexual couples to a form of 
substandard marriage, while giving the false impression that their 
union is recognized in the same way as civil marriage?203 
In an attempt to grant same-sex couples legal protections, France 
created a union that “confirmed[ed] the inequalit[ies] of same-sex 
couples.”204 Today, 90 percent of PACS are registered to heterosexual 
couples who see a loophole in achieving legal recognition without 
risking divorce consequences.205 
2. Belgium
Belgium first recognized unmarried cohabitants in 1989.206 Today,
two different legal unions are recognized in Belgium: marriage and 
legal cohabitation.207 Two individuals can enter into a cohabitation by 
signing a written contract.208 In this contract, the couple can 
contractually stipulate to property concerns, financial concerns, 
197 Id. at 486.  
198 Id. 
199 Id. 
200 Id. 
201 Id. at 486–87.  
202 Id. at 488. 
203 Id.  
204 Id.  
205 Kim et al., supra note 165, at 87.  
206 Frederik Swennen & Dimitri Mortelmans, National Report: Belgium 1, 6 (Jan. 2015), 
http://ceflonline.net/wp-content/uploads/Belgium-IR.pdf. 
207 Id. at 1. 
208 Id.  
2018] Unmarried Cohabitants: How the United States Is 295 
Still Not Protecting Same-Sex Couples 
inheritance concerns, and any other relationship concerns the couple 
may have.209  
Any two people, age of majority and older, can contractually cohabit 
as long as neither person is already married or contractually connected 
to another person.210 Belgium does not require the couple to have an 
emotional or sexual connection for a valid contract.211 Once the 
requirements are met, the couple submits a legal cohabitation 
declaration to the registrar with proof of shared residency.212 The 
registrar reserves the right to deny the application.213 Neither person’s 
legal status is affected by a cohabitant contract; each partner remains 
single according to government regulation.214  
Once the cohabitation contract has been approved, legal protections 
for the shared family home attach.215 Neither partner may alter the 
shared residence without the other partner’s consent.216 
If the couple moves, both partners must share in the moving 
expenses.217 All daily life expenses such as bills, food, house 
maintenance, etc., must be shared.218 If the couple has a child, both 
parents share equally in the educational and daily expenses of raising 
the child.219 Both partners are liable for any and all debts contracted 
mutually or independently, unless they are excessive, which is 
determined on a case-by-case basis in the court system.220 The couple 
is free to determine what inheritance benefits, welfare benefits, and 
other benefits attach at the outset of their relationship in their cohabitant 
contract.221 
209 Id. 
210 Marriage and Legal Cohabitation in Belgium, FEDERAL MIGRATION CENTRE 1, 6 
(Apr. 2014), http://www.myria.be/files/Marriage_and_Legal_Cohabitation_in_Belgium. 
pdf. 
211 Id. at 5. 
212 Id. at 18. 
213 Id.  
214 Id. at 20. 
215 Cohabitation Légale, INFORMATION ET SERVICES OFFICIELS (2018), https://www. 
belgium.be/fr/famille/couple/cohabitation/cohabitation_legale/. 
216 CODE CIVIL [C.CIV.] art. 1477 (Belg.).  
217 Marriage and Legal Cohabitation in Belgium, supra note 210, at 24.  
218 Cohabitation Légale, supra note 215, at 24.  
219 Eric Spuryt, Cohabitation: One Name, Several Situations, (Nov. 23, 2012) 1, 1 
http://berquinnotarissenbe.webhosting.be/public/pdf/eng/EN_Samenwoning_ES.pdf. 
220 Id. 
221 See generally Swennen, supra note 206. 
296 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 20, 275 
Two methods exist to terminate a cohabitant contract: by consent or 
by court order.222 By consent, the couple submits an annulment request 
to the court.223 Once approved, each partner retains any parent- or child-
based rights, but the previous contractual rights cease to exist.224 By 
court order, any justified person, including third parties, or the court 
prosecutor by consultation can enter a termination application.225 Third 
party applications can be submitted if anyone is concerned that the 
union was founded out of convenience or force.226 
If the union is found to be convenient or forced, penalties will 
increase based on the gravity of the situation.227 General penalties are 
imposed when the couple has attempted and/or successfully carried out 
a union of convenience.228 General penalties impose fines and minimal 
jail time.229 The greatest punishment is applied to unions of force or 
violence and consist of five years in prison and a five-thousand euro 
fine.230 
F. Canada
Canada generally defines unmarried cohabitants as persons who live 
together for more than a year or who have a child together.231 Each 
Canadian province treats unmarried cohabitants differently. This next 
section examines four of the major provinces and their treatments of 
unmarried cohabitants. As of 2016, unmarried cohabitants made up 21 
percent of the population.232 
1. Alberta
The Adult Interdependent Relationships Act governs unmarried
cohabitants.233 Alberta does not grant unmarried cohabitants rights 
222 Mettre fin à la cohabitation, INFORMATION ET SERVICES OFFICIELS (2018), 
https://www.belgium.be/fr/famille/couple/cohabitation/mettre_fin_a_la_cohabitation. 
223 Id.  
224 Spuryt, supra note 219, at 3.  
225 Marriage and Legal Cohabitation in Belgium, supra note 210, at 20. 
226 Id.  
227 Id. at 23. 
228 Id.  
229 Id.  
230 Id.  
231 Andrea Mrozek, Increasing Cohabitation Is Destabilizing the Canadian Family 
(Aug. 23, 2017), https://ifstudies.org/blog/increasing-cohabitation-is-destabilizing-the-
canadian-family. 
232 Id. 
233 Catherine Brown & Kyle T. Gardiner, The Rights of Unmarried Cohabitants in 
Canada, 24 TRUSTS & TRUSTEES 1, 86, 89 (2018).  
2018] Unmarried Cohabitants: How the United States Is 297 
Still Not Protecting Same-Sex Couples 
equal to those of their married counterparts.234 To qualify as unmarried 
cohabitants, the couple must live together in a “relationship of 
interdependence” for three consecutive years or live together with a 
child.235 A relationship of interdependence is defined as one that exists 
outside of marriage where the couple shares their lives together as an 
economic and domestic unit.236 A couple can bypass the three-year 
requirement if they enter into a written Adult Interdependent 
Relationship contract.237  
Family law principles govern property rights and support rights in 
this relationship.238 For tax purposes, each partner is treated as single 
according to government regulation.239 Neither partner may claim the 
other cohabitant as his/her partner for tax purposes.240 If the couple 
separates, courts fall back on family law provisions to govern property 
distribution and support obligations.241 The court has the discretion to 
grant sole possession of the joint home and joint household goods to 
one partner or equitably divide the property between the two 
partners.242 Either partner may bring a claim for spousal support, but 
there is no guarantee the court will accept the claim.243 No inheritance 
rights attach if the couple separates.244 
If the relationship ends because one partner dies, the surviving 
partner may submit an inheritance application directly to the court if 
the partner dies intestate or if his/her will contains inadequate 
provisions for the surviving partner.245 If the partner dies intestate with 
no surviving descendant(s), the entire estate passes to the surviving 
partner.246 However, if the partner dies intestate with a surviving 
descendant(s), the property is divided equally between the surviving 
descendant(s) and surviving partner.247  
234 Id. 
235 Id. 
236 Id. 
237 Id. 
238 Id. 
239 Id. at 91. 
240 Id. 
241 Id. 
242 Id. 
243 Id. 
244 Id. 
245 Id. 
246 Id. 
247 Id. 
298 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 20, 275 
2. Quebec
Quebec refers to unmarried cohabitants as de facto spouses.248
Generally, these couples do not share the same legal rights as those who 
are married or engaged in a civil union.249 To be considered de facto 
spouses, the couple must have lived together for at least three years or 
share a child together.250 The following legal protections do not apply 
to de facto spouses: property division rights, mutual support 
obligations, inheritance rights, or legal standing to bring surviving 
partner claims.251 
In some instances, unmarried cohabitants may qualify as a “spouse” 
for income tax purposes, though generally they remain “single” 
according to government policy.252 When the cohabitants are 
considered “spouses,” they are taxed like married couples and allowed 
to transfer property tax-free between each other.253 
Unmarried cohabitants can sign a contract stipulating to their 
expectations as a couple.254 They can designate financial 
responsibilities, value their separate property, and stipulate to the 
consequences of dissolution like property division and spousal support 
rights.255 Generally, the court may not amend any terms to the contract; 
however, the court may amend contractual terms regarding children.256 
Without a cohabitation contract, neither partner is entitled to 
property rights or support obligations if the couple separates.257 
Additionally, neither partner is entitled to inheritance rights without a 
contract assigning those benefits.258 If one partner dies intestate, the 
entire estate passes to the legally recognized heirs; this does not include 
the surviving partner. 259  
248 Id. at 92.  
249 Id. 
250 De Facto Union, SERVICES QUEBEC (2018), http://www4.gouv.qc.ca/en/Portail/ 
Citoyens/Evenements/separation-divorce/Pages/union-fait.aspx. 
251 Id. 
252 Id. 
253 Id. 
254 Id. 
255 Id. 
256 Id. 
257 Brown & Gardiner, supra note 233, at 92. 
258 Id.  
259 Id. 
2018] Unmarried Cohabitants: How the United States Is 299 
Still Not Protecting Same-Sex Couples 
3. British Columbia
In 2013, British Columbia amended the definition of “spouse” to
include those couples living in a marriage-like relationship for at least 
two years or who share a child.260 If a couple satisfies either 
requirement, the couple enjoys the same benefits as married partners.261 
The couple is taxed as a married couple and can share in tax-free 
transfer benefits and spousal support tax deductions.262  
For these couples, each partner is entitled to half of the property 
acquired during the relationship.263 Additionally, each partner is 
responsible for half of any debt accumulated in the relationship.264 The 
divisible property includes any property owned separately or jointly by 
the partners.265 The only property not divisible is property acquired by 
gift, such as inheritance, awards, etc.266 If any of the excludable 
property increased in value during the relationship, the ex-partner is 
entitled to half of that increased value.267 Each partner is also entitled 
to spousal support under the same rules as married couples.268 If the 
relationship ends because a partner died, the surviving partner has a 
right to an estate share.269 Any shared children also have inheritance 
rights.270 
4. Ontario
Article 53 of Ontario’s Family Law Act governs cohabitant rights.271
Cohabitants are defined as two unmarried persons who contract to 
cohabit.272 The couple may be heterosexual or homosexual.273 Unlike 
other cohabitant frameworks, if the couple marries, their union is 
legally redefined as married and does not invalidate their cohabitation 
260 Id. at 88. 
261 Id.  
262 Id. 
263 Id. 
264 Id. 
265 Id. 
266 Id. 
267 Id. 
268 Id. 
269 Id. 
270 Id. 
271 Ontario Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.53 (Can.). 
272 Id.  
273 Id.  
300 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 20, 275 
contract.274 Unmarried couples are considered married for tax 
purposes.275 Thus, they can enjoy tax-free transfer benefits and tax 
deductions for paid support.276 
When entering a cohabitation contract, the parties stipulate to 
property division rights and support obligations at the onset.277 
Additionally, the couple can stipulate to educational and lifestyle 
choices of any shared children.278 However, the couple may not 
determine custody rights or support obligations for their children.279  
By law, unmarried cohabitants are not required to share the same 
residence.280 Additionally, a couple’s cohabitation contract does not 
automatically terminate if the couple decides to separate.281 Instead, the 
couple can contractually separate and qualify their views on property 
division, support obligations, and any other legal concerns.282 Thus, a 
couple can separate but retain mutual legal rights and obligations.283  
By default, unmarried cohabitants have spousal support rights when 
the relationship ends. 284 The spousal support amount is determined at 
the discretion of the court.285 No automatic inheritance rights attach to 
unmarried cohabitants.286 Without a valid will, a surviving partner 
receives nothing from the estate.287 
IV 
LEGAL FRAMEWORKS SUMMARY 
The above countries’ legal frameworks have advantages and 
disadvantages; no country has a perfect framework. In particular, the 
Scandinavian countries vary drastically. Unmarried cohabitants enjoy 
an advantage in Denmark because they are granted spousal support 
rights, pension rights, inheritance rights, property division rights, and 
adoption rights. Meanwhile, in Norway, unmarried cohabitants are at a 
274 Brown & Gardiner, supra note 233, at 92. 
275 Id.  
276 Id. 
277 Id. 
278 Id. 
279 Id. 
280 See Ontario Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.54 (Can.). 
281 Id. 
282 Id. 
283 Id. 
284 Brown & Gardiner, supra note 233, at 91. 
285 Id. 
286 Id. 
287 Id. 
2018] Unmarried Cohabitants: How the United States Is 301 
Still Not Protecting Same-Sex Couples 
disadvantage because they do not have support rights or property rights. 
The only advantage for Norwegian unmarried cohabitants is mandatory 
child rights and parental responsibilities. Although Sweden has a 
default equitable property division framework, the only available 
property is the shared home and shared household goods. Even more 
limiting, the shared home is only divisible if the partners mutually 
purchased the home. Most partners mutually own assets that fall 
outside the above designated scope. 
Unmarried cohabitants of the former Yugoslavia had the advantage 
of property rights and spousal support obligations. However, outside of 
those legal areas, no other rights were extended to them. Only the 
Socialist Republic of Slovenia extended inheritance rights.  
Australian unmarried cohabitants are well off for property division. 
The main drawback of the Australian framework is the requirement that 
couples must wait three years before they qualify as de facto spouses. 
There is no wait period for marriage, so why should unmarried 
cohabitants be restricted by a wait period?  
The main advantage of France’s PACS system’s is that it allows for 
same-sex couples to secure legal property rights, spousal support rights, 
and health insurance benefits. Yet, the PACS system disadvantages 
couples by taxing their income as if they were single for the first two 
years, while immediately taxing them as married for wealth taxes. No 
inheritance rights attach to either partner, and they are not allowed to 
adopt children. A couple should not be prevented from adopting 
children simply because they are not married.  
Belgium went further than France and allowed any couple to enter a 
contract even if they did not have an intimate relationship. Yet, this 
allowance defeats the purpose of giving unmarried cohabitants legal 
rights by invalidating their choice to live together in a marriage-like 
relationship. However, Belgium imposes penalties for sham 
cohabitations, which leads us to question what is truly a valid 
cohabitant relationship in Belgium?  
The Canadian provinces all restrict unmarried cohabitants from 
entering a union until after two years (British Columbia) or three years 
(all other provinces). No time restriction should be applied before a 
couple can be legally classified as unmarried cohabitants. Only British 
Columbia and Alberta attach inheritance rights. Quebec taxes the 
couple as two “single” persons. Quebec does not assign property rights 
or spousal obligations to the couple.  
302 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 20, 275 
CONCLUSION 
The United States needs to adopt a legal framework that protects 
unmarried cohabitants. Two systems need to be adopted. First, the 
United States needs to adopt a default system that applies to all 
unmarried cohabitants. Second, the United States needs to adopt an opt-
in cohabitant contract that allows the partners to assign additional 
benefits to each other. To protect these unions, penalties should be 
imposed on sham cohabitations to help legitimize unmarried cohabitant 
families. 
By default, unmarried cohabitants should be given property rights 
and support obligations. If the couple had been living in a marriage-
like relationship while representing themselves as a couple, they are 
legally classified as unmarried cohabitants. No time period should be 
required. The property rights would apply to any property acquired 
during the relationship. This would include their shared residency and 
any other assets purchased throughout the duration of their relationship, 
regardless of whose paycheck was used to make the purchase. The 
support obligations would apply to the ex-partner and any children. 
Any child taken into the home and raised as if he or she was the 
couple’s mutual child would be protected under these support rights. 
Spousal support should be decided on a case-by-case basis using the 
family law rules of each state.  
A surviving partner should have an automatic inheritance right. 
Whether the partner died intestate or with a will, the surviving partner 
should have a right to any part of the estate he or she shared with the 
deceased. The couple should have the option to be taxed jointly, so they 
can enjoy tax-free property transfers and other marital tax incentives. 
The surviving partner should also, by default, have legal standing to 
raise claims in court as the surviving spouse. 
The second set of protections would be granted via an opt-in 
contract. Each couple could contractually obligate themselves to a set 
of rights. Each couple could designate additional inheritance rights, 
shared welfare benefits, pension rights, etc. This would protect all 
unmarried couples, specifically same-sex couples, and pave the way to 
ultimately granting these unions the protections they deserve. 
As discussed in the introduction, more than 39 percent of couples in 
the United States are categorized as “unmarried cohabitants.” This 
percentage represents the number of couples currently legally 
unprotected without individual action to secured legal rights and 
support obligations.  
2018] Unmarried Cohabitants: How the United States Is 303 
Still Not Protecting Same-Sex Couples 
Based on past legal precedent, and the current direction of the 
government, the United States needs lobbyists to fight for unmarried 
cohabitants. The Legislature needs to write an act solely focused on 
unmarried cohabitants. In this act, the Legislature needs to ascribe 
rights to unmarried cohabitants regarding the following: property 
division, child support, spousal support, inheritance rights, medical 
rights, tax regulations, and more. Until the United States creates and 
implements such an act, unmarried cohabitants remain in a legally risky 
relationship. More specifically, same-sex unmarried cohabitants 
remain in the riskiest type of relationship—one that has very few legal 
protections and very little precedent to support future legal claims.  
304 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 20, 275