COLUMBUS — Love and affection aren’t enough — at least to establish a contract, according to the Ohio Supreme Court.

The court ruled Thursday that moving into a home with another person while engaging in a romantic relationship does not satisfy the legal requirement necessary to form a contract.

The court’s ruling reverses a decision out of the 9th District Court of Appeals, which found that a Medina woman’s agreement to move in with her boyfriend to resume their relationship was sufficient consideration granting her an ownership interest in the home.

“I think the Supreme Court clearly made the right decision,” said Tom Hagel, a law professor at the University of Dayton. “It would have turned ‘love and affection’ into a commodity. I don’t know what the difference would be between that and straight out prostitution.”

There are more than 271,000 unmarried partner households across Ohio, representing 6 percent of all households. That includes more than 34,000 in Montgomery, Clark, Greene, Miami, Butler and Warren counties.

Had the court ruled in favor of the Medina woman, it would have made a decision against Ohio law for hundreds of years and opened up “an enormous amount of problems,” according to Jeffrey Morris, a UD law school professor who specializes in contract law.

“A promise to make a gift is not enforceable,” Morris said. “Contracts enforce deals. They don’t enforce gifts.”

In the Medina case, Amber Williams had obtained the title for the house in question through divorce. In May 2004, her boyfriend at the time, Frederick Ormsby, moved in and started making mortgage payments. After he paid the $310,000 balance off in December 2004, Williams signed a deed transferring the title to him.

They later broke up, and in March 2005, signed an agreement that said they would sell the house, that the first $324,000 of the sale would go to Ormsby and the rest would go to Williams.

Then they reconciled, and on June 2, 2005, signed a document purportedly making themselves “equal partners” in the house.

They filed suit against each other in 2008, according to the Ohio Supreme Court.

The court ruled 6-1 that the second document was not an enforceable contract, because “love and affection” were not consideration to form a contract.