Marvin v. Marvin

Supreme Court of California
18 Cal.3d 660, 557 P.2d 106, 134 Cal. Rptr. 815 (1976)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Express or implied agreements between nonmarital cohabiting partners to share property are enforceable, and in the absence of such an agreement, courts may use equitable remedies to protect the parties' reasonable expectations.

Facts:

In October 1964, Michelle Marvin and Lee Marvin began living together without marrying.
They orally agreed they would combine their efforts and earnings and would share equally in all property accumulated.
They also agreed to present themselves to the public as husband and wife.
Michelle Marvin agreed to give up her career as an entertainer and singer to devote her full time to being a companion, homemaker, housekeeper, and cook for Lee Marvin.
In return, Lee Marvin agreed to provide for all of Michelle Marvin's financial support and needs for the rest of her life.
During their relationship, from 1964 to 1970, the couple acquired substantial real and personal property in Lee Marvin's name, including motion picture rights worth over $1 million.
In May 1970, Lee Marvin compelled Michelle Marvin to leave his household.
Lee Marvin provided financial support to Michelle Marvin until November 1971, at which point he refused to provide any further support.

Procedural Posture:

Michelle Marvin (plaintiff) filed a complaint against Lee Marvin (defendant) in California superior court (trial court).
The complaint sought declaratory relief regarding her contract and property rights and the imposition of a constructive trust on half the acquired property.
After discovery and pretrial proceedings, the case came to trial.
At trial, the defendant made a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a cause of action.
The trial court granted the defendant's motion and entered judgment in favor of Lee Marvin.
The trial court denied the plaintiff's subsequent motion to set aside the judgment and for leave to amend her complaint.
Michelle Marvin (appellant) appealed the judgment, and the California Supreme Court granted review.

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 a nonmarital partner have an enforceable legal claim against the other partner for a share of property acquired during their relationship based on an express contract, an implied contract, or equitable principles?

Opinions:

Majority - Tobriner, J.

Yes. A nonmarital partner has enforceable claims to property acquired during the relationship under several legal and equitable theories. Adults who voluntarily live together are as competent as any other persons to contract respecting their earnings and property rights. Courts will enforce express contracts between nonmarital partners unless they explicitly rest on the consideration of meretricious sexual services. In the absence of an express contract, courts should inquire into the parties' conduct to determine if it demonstrates an implied contract, an agreement of partnership or joint venture, or some other tacit understanding. Furthermore, courts may employ equitable remedies such as constructive trusts, resulting trusts, or quantum meruit to prevent unjust enrichment and protect the parties' lawful expectations.

Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Clark, J.

Yes, but only on the basis of contract. The majority correctly permits recovery based on express or implied-in-fact agreements, which is all that is required to reverse the trial court's judgment. However, the majority overreaches by broadly extending recovery to equitable principles and quantum meruit. Creating these additional remedies for unmarried partners imposes economic obligations they may have intentionally sought to avoid by not marrying, violates the spirit of the no-fault Family Law Act by requiring an examination of conduct, and creates unmanageable burdens for trial courts without clear guidance. This judicial action essentially creates and dissolves a marriage on terms the parties never contemplated.

Analysis:

This landmark decision fundamentally altered the legal rights of unmarried cohabiting couples in California and influenced family law nationwide. It rejected the traditional doctrine that barred property claims arising from 'meretricious' relationships, recognizing that modern social norms had changed. By establishing that contract and equitable principles apply to nonmarital partners, the court created the 'Marvin action,' a legal framework for property division upon separation that remains highly influential. The ruling significantly expanded the scope of enforceable agreements beyond the confines of formal marriage, requiring courts to honor the reasonable expectations of parties in long-term, marriage-like relationships.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Marvin v. Marvin (1976)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"