Bergen v. Wood
14 Cal. App. 4th 854, 18 Cal. Rptr. 2d 75, 93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2342 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An agreement for support between unmarried, non-cohabiting partners is unenforceable if the services rendered as consideration are primarily or inseparably based on sexual relations and lack independent monetary value, such as being a social companion or hostess.
Facts:
- In the summer of 1981, Duane Wood, a 65-year-old widower, met Birgit Bergen, a 45-year-old German actress, in Monte Carlo.
- Wood and Bergen quickly developed an intimate relationship that lasted seven years.
- Bergen and Wood never cohabited; Bergen maintained an apartment in Munich, Germany, and stayed in a hotel when in California.
- Bergen served as Wood’s traveling companion, accompanied him to social events, and acted as his hostess and confidante.
- Wood provided Bergen with money, paid for her travel expenses, and covered her hotel accommodations.
- The relationship ended in late 1988, after Bergen retained an attorney regarding various claims arising from the relationship.
- Bergen alleged an oral agreement where she would be Wood's companion, confidante, homemaker, and social hostess, in exchange for Wood providing for her financial support.
- Wood had repeatedly promised Bergen he would always provide for her, but there were no specific discussions about the duration or amount of support, particularly after the relationship ended.
Procedural Posture:
- Birgit Bergen retained Attorney Marvin M. Mitchelson concerning various property and contractual claims arising from her relationship with Duane Wood.
- In April 1989, Bergen filed a complaint against Wood in state trial court (court of first instance) for breach of express contract, breach of implied contract, and fraud and deceit.
- Following a bench trial at which both parties and various witnesses testified, the trial court issued a statement of decision.
- The trial court found no implied-in-fact contract and no fraud, but found an oral contract between the parties for Wood to provide Bergen’s support.
- The trial court determined that Bergen’s services as a social companion and hostess were adequate consideration, severable from the sexual aspects, and awarded Bergen $3,500 per month for 48 months.
- Duane Wood, the defendant, appealed from the judgment to the California Court of Appeal (intermediate appellate court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an oral agreement for financial support between non-cohabiting partners constitute an enforceable contract under 'palimony' principles when the alleged consideration involves services as a social companion and hostess, which are inextricably intertwined with the sexual relationship?
Opinions:
Majority - Klein, P. J.
No, an agreement for financial support between non-cohabiting partners, where the consideration is services as a social companion and hostess, is not enforceable because these services are not valuable consideration severable from the sexual relationship. The court referenced Marvin v. Marvin, which allows adults voluntarily living together and engaged in sexual relations to contract respecting their earnings and property rights, provided the agreement does not rest upon illicit meretricious consideration (i.e., sexual services). However, subsequent case law, specifically Taylor v. Fields, has held that recovery under Marvin requires a stable and significant relationship arising out of cohabitation, primarily because cohabitation typically involves the rendition of domestic services which can amount to lawful consideration. The court distinguished Milian v. De Leon, which allowed recovery without cohabitation, by noting that Milian concerned the partition of jointly purchased property, not future support, and therefore cohabitation was not relevant to property rights. Crucially, the court looked to Whorton v. Dillingham to distinguish between services that are monetarily valuable and independent of a sexual relationship (e.g., chauffeur, bodyguard, secretary) versus those that are intertwined (e.g., constant companion and confidant). The court concluded that Bergen’s services as a social companion and hostess are not normally compensated and are inextricably intertwined with the sexual relationship, thus failing to provide consideration independent of the sexual aspect of the relationship, making the agreement unenforceable.
Analysis:
This case significantly limits the scope of 'palimony' claims, particularly for non-cohabiting relationships. It reinforces the principle that while agreements between unmarried partners are enforceable, the consideration for such agreements cannot be solely or inseparably based on sexual services. By clarifying that social companionship and hostess duties are generally considered intertwined with the sexual relationship and lack independent monetary value, the court narrowed the types of services that qualify as valid consideration. This decision makes it more difficult for non-cohabiting partners to claim support based on promises, emphasizing the need for cohabitation or for very specific, financially measurable services clearly distinct from the personal aspects of the relationship.
