In Re Marriage of Cary
109 Cal. Rptr. 862, 34 Cal. App. 3d 345 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
California's Family Law Act, which eliminates fault or guilt from the determination of marital property rights, applies to property accumulated by unmarried cohabitants who have established an actual family relationship and ostensibly acted as a married couple, requiring an equal division of such property upon separation.
Facts:
- Paul Cary and Janet Forbes lived together for over eight years.
- During their cohabitation, they held themselves out to others as a married couple, with Janet using the name Cary.
- Paul and Janet purchased a home and other property, borrowed money, obtained credit, and filed joint income tax returns as husband and wife.
- Four children were born to Paul and Janet, whom Paul acknowledged and supported, and whose birth certificates and school registrations listed their parents as Paul and Janet Cary.
- While Paul worked, Janet generally stayed home, taking care of the children and the house.
- Both Paul and Janet knew they were not legally married, having discussed a wedding ceremony but never completing one.
- Through Paul's earnings, the parties accumulated real and personal property that would have been community property had they been legally married.
Procedural Posture:
- Paul Cary petitioned the superior court for 'Nullity of the marriage pursuant to Civil Code section 4001'.
- The trial court determined that the property accumulated during the parties' cohabitation should be equally divided between Paul Cary and Janet Forbes.
- Paul Cary appealed the trial court's property division ruling to the California Court of Appeal, First District, Division One.
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 the no-fault principle of the California Family Law Act, which mandates equal division of community property in void or voidable marriages where one party believed the marriage was valid, also apply to the property accumulated by unmarried cohabitants who knowingly lived together and held themselves out as a family?
Opinions:
Majority - Elkington, J.
Yes, the no-fault principle of the California Family Law Act does apply to the property accumulated by unmarried cohabitants who knowingly lived together as a family. The court reasoned that the Family Law Act, effective January 1, 1970, profoundly changed California law by eliminating the concept of individual fault, guilt, or punishment in determining family property rights. Prior to the Act, courts distinguished between 'putative spouses' (those who believed in good faith they were married, whose property was treated as quasi-marital property) and parties in 'meretricious' relationships (knowingly unmarried cohabitants), denying property rights to the latter based on their 'guilt.' However, the Family Law Act's core philosophy, reflected in Civil Code sections 4452, 4509, and 4800, mandates equal property division without regard to fault, even for void or voidable marriages where only one party believed in good faith that the marriage was valid. The court found that extending the previous 'leave them where they placed themselves' rule to knowingly unmarried couples would lead to an absurd and unreasonable result, frustrating the Act's clear objective. Such an interpretation would incongruously reward deceit (where one party mistakenly believes in marriage) while punishing honesty (where both parties candidly acknowledge not being married). The Legislature’s intention, as gathered from the 'general tenor and scope of the entire scheme embodied in the enactments,' was to remove fault from property rights determinations across the board in family relationships. The court concluded that the Act supersedes prior judicial authority that relied on fault and establishes a public policy that 'guilt' and 'innocence' are no longer relevant in determining family property rights, regardless of a legal marriage, and if not, regardless of whether the deficiency is known to one, both, or neither of the parties. Therefore, the trial court properly disregarded fault and divided the property evenly under Civil Code section 4800. The court also affirmed the trial court's custody decision, finding no abuse of discretion in awarding custody of the two younger children to Janet, noting that substantial evidence supported Janet's fitness and the children's best interests.
Analysis:
This case significantly expanded the application of California's Family Law Act's no-fault principles beyond formally married or putative spouses, extending them to knowingly unmarried cohabitants who had established a de facto family unit. By eliminating 'fault' as a factor in property division for such couples, Cary began to dismantle the 'meretricious relationship' doctrine, which previously denied property rights to knowingly unmarried partners. This ruling foreshadowed and laid the groundwork for the more expansive contractual and equitable theories later established in Marvin v. Marvin, profoundly impacting how property is divided in non-marital relationships in California and influencing similar developments in other jurisdictions.
