redefining Financial Obligations in Cohabiting Relationships

The Italian Court of Cassation has recently issued a significant ordinance (no.11337/2025,dated April 30th) that sheds new light on the financial responsibilities within cohabiting relationships. This ruling addresses situations where one partner disproportionately contributes to shared expenses, particularly mortgage payments, and the implications upon separation.

Mortgage Payments as “collaboration and Assistance”

The core of the court’s argument revolves around the concept of mortgage payments made by a sole income-earning partner during cohabitation. The court explicitly states that such contributions should be viewed as a form of “collaboration and moral and material assistance,” an expected element within a stable and committed relationship. This perspective acknowledges the inherent interdependence and shared responsibilities that characterize modern cohabitation.

…this contribution is to be considered a form of collaboration and moral and material assistance, which is considered a must in the context of a consolidated emotional relationship.

Court of Cassation, Ordinance no. 11337/2025

Unjust enrichment: Beyond the Obligations of Cohabitation

Though, the court also clarifies the boundaries of these obligations.The ruling emphasizes that an “unjust enrichment” claim can arise when one partner benefits excessively from the other’s contributions, exceeding the normal expectations of a cohabiting relationship. this is particularly relevant when the services provided go beyond the mere fulfillment of duties arising from the cohabitation itself.

To determine whether unjust enrichment has occurred, the court suggests considering the social and economic circumstances of both partners. The key is to assess whether the contributions were proportionate and adequate, taking into account the couple’s overall financial situation and lifestyle. For example,if one partner consistently paid for all household expenses while the other saved a significant portion of thier income,this could possibly be considered unjust enrichment.

It is therefore possible to configure the injustice of the enrichment by a cohabiting partner more uxorio against the other in the presence of services for the benefit of the first exulating from the mere fulfillment of the obligations born from the relationship of coexistence…and crossing the limits of proportionality and adequacy.

Court of Cassation, Ordinance no. 11337/2025

The Principle of General enrichment Action

The judges at piazza Cavour emphasize the request of established legal principles. The general enrichment action requires that one person’s gain must be at the expense of another, without just cause. This “lack of just cause” cannot be invoked if the enrichment stems from a contract or the fulfillment of a natural obligation.This distinction is crucial in determining the validity of an unjust enrichment claim in the context of cohabitation.

Consider a scenario where one partner invests substantially in renovating a property owned solely by the other partner. If the relationship ends, the investing partner may have grounds for an unjust enrichment claim, particularly if the renovations substantially increased the property’s value and the investing partner received no compensation.

Implications and Future Considerations

This ruling from the Court of Cassation provides valuable guidance for navigating the complex financial aspects of cohabiting relationships. It underscores the importance of open communication and clear agreements regarding financial contributions. while the ruling acknowledges the inherent obligations within a cohabiting partnership, it also recognizes the potential for unjust enrichment when one partner’s contributions significantly exceed what is considered fair and reasonable.

As cohabitation becomes increasingly prevalent, legal frameworks must adapt to address the unique challenges and complexities of these relationships. This ruling represents a step in that direction, offering a more nuanced understanding of financial responsibilities and the potential for legal recourse in cases of unjust enrichment. Further legal developments and case law will undoubtedly continue to shape the landscape of cohabitation law in the years to come.