Membership agreements aim to position coliving as a service contract rather than a residential tenancy. The intent is usually to (a) avoid statutory tenancy protections (just-cause eviction, rent caps, security-of-tenure) and (b) enable shorter-stay flexibility.
The legal robustness of membership agreements varies dramatically by jurisdiction. UK courts apply Street v Mountford (1985): if substance grants exclusive possession of a specific space, it's a tenancy regardless of label. US courts (Carter v Cohen in CA) apply similar substance-over-form tests. Spain, Portugal, Germany typically don't recognise membership distinct from tenancy at all.
A membership agreement is therefore not a magic eraser of tenancy obligations. It works in jurisdictions where the substance genuinely is service-and-non-exclusive-use; it doesn't work where there's a private bedroom and a fixed monthly rent.
In the field
WeLive's failure was partly due to NYC courts re-classifying its membership agreements as tenancies under MDL. The Collective uses membership-agreement-style language but with substance designed to survive UK Street v Mountford analysis. Common uses standard residential furnished tenancies, having concluded the legal risk doesn't justify the structural complexity.
Common pitfalls
- ×Drafting membership agreements that grant exclusive possession of a private bedroom — courts re-classify on first dispute.
- ×Mixing membership and tenancy language in the same contract — creates both reading.
- ×Assuming a US-drafted membership template works in EU jurisdictions — it generally doesn't.
- ×Not having a backup tenancy structure for jurisdictions that won't recognise the membership.