Cary v. Cary
1973 Cal. App. LEXIS 806, 34 Cal. App. 3d 345, 109 Cal. Rptr. 862 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When unmarried persons cohabitate and hold themselves out as a married couple, the Family Law Act's principle of equal division of property applies, superseding the previous common law rule that denied property rights to parties in a "meretricious" relationship.
Facts:
- Paul Cary and Janet Forbes lived together for over eight years but never legally married.
- During this time, they held themselves out to the public, friends, and family as a married couple, and Janet used the surname Cary.
- They had four children together, whom Paul acknowledged as his own.
- Paul worked to support the family while Janet primarily took care of the children and the home.
- Together, they purchased a home and other property using Paul's earnings, which would have been considered community property had they been married.
- Both parties were aware that they were not legally married, having discussed a wedding ceremony but never proceeding with one.
Procedural Posture:
- Paul Cary petitioned the superior court (trial court) for a "Nullity of the marriage."
- The trial court ruled that the property acquired by the parties during their relationship should be divided equally between them.
- Paul Cary, the petitioner, appealed the trial court's judgment regarding the property division to the Court of Appeal.
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 California's Family Law Act, which mandates an equal division of community property without regard to fault, apply to the property division of an unmarried couple who knowingly cohabitated and held themselves out as husband and wife?
Opinions:
Majority - Elkington, J.
Yes. California's Family Law Act and its no-fault principles apply to the property division of an unmarried couple who knowingly cohabitated as a family. The court reasoned that the Act's primary purpose is to eliminate fault and guilt from considerations of family property rights. To deny relief to a couple who openly lived as a family while granting it to a couple where one partner was deceived about the marriage's validity would be an unreasonable and absurd result, frustrating the legislative intent. The court held that the public policy of the Act, which treats the dissolution of a marriage like the dissolution of a business partnership, must be applied to quasi-marital relationships to ensure a fair and equal division of property acquired through their joint efforts. The key is the existence of an actual family relationship with cohabitation and the mutual assumption of the rights and duties of marriage, not just an unmarried living arrangement.
Analysis:
This case marked a significant departure from the traditional common law rule that left parties in a so-called "meretricious relationship" without a legal remedy for property disputes. By extending the no-fault principles of the Family Law Act to unmarried cohabitants who function as a family, the court prioritized the reality of the relationship over its legal status. This decision eroded the distinction between putative spouses (who believe in good faith they are married) and knowing cohabitants, paving the way for the California Supreme Court's landmark decision in Marvin v. Marvin, which further developed the property rights of unmarried partners based on contract principles.
