Marvin v. Marvin
122 Cal. App. 3d 871, 176 Cal. Rptr. 555, 1981 Cal. App. LEXIS 2132 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court cannot grant an equitable award that is outside the issues framed by the pleadings, nor can it create new substantive rights under the guise of equity without a recognized underlying legal or equitable obligation.
Facts:
- In June 1964, Lee Marvin and Michelle Marvin met and began living together occasionally in October of that year.
- From the spring of 1965 to May or June of 1970, Lee and Michelle lived together almost continuously.
- Their cohabitation was based on an initial agreement to live together as unmarried persons as long as they both enjoyed mutual companionship and affection.
- During their cohabitation, Lee and Michelle never agreed to combine their efforts, earnings, or share equally in any property accumulated, nor did Michelle agree to relinquish her professional career to devote full time to Lee.
- At the time of their separation, Lee's property had a market value exceeding $1 million.
- At the time of trial, Michelle had been receiving unemployment benefits and it was doubtful she could return to her prior career as a singer, leading the trial court to find she was in need of rehabilitation.
Procedural Posture:
- Michelle Marvin filed a lawsuit against Lee Marvin in a California trial court.
- The trial court's initial proceedings led to an appeal, and the California Supreme Court ruled in Marvin v. Marvin (1976), holding that non-marital cohabitants could enforce express or implied contracts, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
- On remand, the trial court (sitting without a jury) heard evidence over a three-month period and subsequently issued a judgment, which included an award of $104,000 to Michelle Marvin for economic rehabilitation.
- Lee Marvin (defendant, appellant) appealed this specific portion of the judgment (the $104,000 rehabilitative award) to the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a trial court's award of rehabilitative support to a non-marital cohabitant valid when the award was not requested in the pleadings and the court found no underlying contractual obligation, unjust enrichment, or damages?
Opinions:
Majority - Cobey, J.
No, a trial court's award of rehabilitative support to a non-marital cohabitant is not valid when it was not requested in the pleadings and no underlying legal or equitable obligation was found. The specific rehabilitative award of $104,000 was not sought in Michelle's amended complaint, which only requested general support and maintenance, thus rendering the award outside the issues framed by the pleadings. Furthermore, the trial court's findings explicitly stated that Lee had no obligation to pay for Michelle's maintenance, Michelle suffered no damage (but rather benefited economically and socially), Lee was not unjustly enriched, and Lee committed no wrongful act. While the trial court cited prior Supreme Court footnotes suggesting the evolution of equitable remedies and leaving open the question of support payments, these footnotes do not authorize awards based merely on a party's need and another's ability to pay, absent a recognized underlying legal or equitable obligation. A court of equity cannot create new substantive rights under the guise of doing equity.
Dissenting - Klein, P.J.
The trial court's rehabilitative award may be justifiable, and the case should be remanded for clarification due to inconsistencies in the findings. The trial court heard extensive evidence over a three-month period, allowing it to thoroughly evaluate the parties and the circumstances. Michelle's amended complaint included a request for “such other relief as this Court deems just and proper,” which could encompass rehabilitative support. The Supreme Court's prior ruling in Marvin v. Marvin (1976) urged trial courts to employ appropriate equitable remedies and specifically left open the question of support payments in non-marital relationships without express or implied contracts. The trial court considered relevant factors such as Michelle's sex, age, earning ability, career status, and the length of the relationship. However, the trial court's specific findings that Michelle did not give up her career and suffered no damage appear inconsistent with its decision to award rehabilitative support, making proper appellate review impossible. Therefore, the judgment should be reversed and remanded to the trial court for correction of these inconsistencies in its findings and conclusions.
Analysis:
This Marvin v. Marvin (1981) decision significantly limits the scope of equitable remedies available to non-marital cohabitants, even after the groundbreaking Marvin v. Marvin (1976) case. It clarifies that while courts may fashion equitable relief, such remedies are not boundless and must be tethered to specific requests in the pleadings and supported by established legal or equitable obligations. The ruling prevents trial courts from granting awards based solely on one party's need and the other's ability to pay, emphasizing that equitable powers do not permit the creation of entirely new substantive rights. This case reinforces the importance of clear pleadings and a demonstrated legal basis for relief in non-marital relationship disputes.
