Vallera v. Vallera
134 P.2d 761, 21 Cal. 2d 681, 1943 Cal. LEXIS 298 (1943)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person who cohabits with another while knowing they are not legally married cannot claim an interest in property accumulated by the other partner during the relationship solely based on the cohabitation, unless there is an express agreement to pool earnings or the person contributed their own funds to the property's acquisition.
Facts:
- In May 1936, Plaintiff began living with Defendant.
- At the time their relationship began, Plaintiff knew Defendant was legally married to another woman, Ethel Chippo Vallera.
- Defendant's marriage to Ethel Chippo Vallera was dissolved on December 15, 1938.
- Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant learned of the marriage dissolution until November 1939.
- The parties continued to live together but never entered into, or attempted to enter into, a marriage agreement with each other.
- Plaintiff and Defendant had no express agreement to pool their earnings or share equally in their joint property accumulations.
- On July 6, 1940, Defendant entered into a valid marriage with another woman, Lido Cappello, and the relationship with Plaintiff ended.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed an action in a California trial court against Defendant, seeking separate maintenance and a division of what she alleged was community property.
- The trial court found that no valid common law marriage ever existed between the parties.
- The trial court concluded that Plaintiff was not entitled to maintenance and that there was no community property.
- However, the trial court held that property acquired by the parties between December 16, 1938, and July 6, 1940, was held by them as tenants in common, with each owning an undivided one-half interest.
- Defendant, as appellant, appealed from the part of the trial court's judgment awarding Plaintiff a one-half interest in the property to the California Supreme 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 a woman who lives with a man, knowing they are not legally married and without an agreement to share property, acquire an interest in the property he accumulates during the relationship solely by reason of their cohabitation and her services as a homemaker?
Opinions:
Majority - Traynor, J.
No. A woman living with a man as his wife but with no genuine belief that she is legally married to him does not acquire the rights of a co-tenant in his earnings and accumulations during the period of their relationship by reason of cohabitation alone. The court distinguished this situation from that of a 'putative spouse,' where a party has a good-faith belief in the existence of a valid marriage. In the absence of such good faith, equitable considerations do not apply. A claim to property can only be sustained if there was an express agreement to pool earnings and share in accumulations, or if the claimant can prove she contributed her own funds toward the property's acquisition. The court found no evidence of either an agreement or a financial contribution from the plaintiff, and therefore she was not entitled to a share of the property.
Dissenting - Curtis, J.
Yes. A woman who knowingly lives in an illicit relationship should still be entitled to an equitable division of property accumulated through their joint efforts. The dissent argued that the majority's holding unjustly ignores the value of the woman's services as a housekeeper, cook, and homemaker, which enabled the man to accumulate wealth. It contended that if courts enforce express agreements to share property in such relationships, there is no logical reason not to enforce an implied agreement based on the significant non-monetary contributions of one partner. To allow the man to retain all fruits of their joint efforts is contrary to simple justice and gives all the advantages of the relationship to him with no burdens.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the distinction between the property rights of a 'putative spouse,' who has a good-faith belief in marriage, and a partner in a knowingly non-marital relationship. It establishes that, absent good faith, rights to a partner's accumulations must be based on contract principles (an express agreement) or traceable financial contributions, not on the status of the relationship itself. This case set a baseline for property disputes between unmarried cohabitants, creating a strict standard that would later be challenged and evolved by landmark cases like Marvin v. Marvin, which introduced concepts of implied contracts and other equitable remedies.
