## Facts

- Jonne Alderson and Steve Colden Alderson cohabited in a marriage-like relationship for about 12 years and had three children; they were never ceremonially married.
- The couple discussed marriage, held themselves out publicly as husband and wife, and used joint financial arrangements, including joint bank accounts and a joint federal tax return.
- Starting in 1968, they jointly decided to acquire real property as a home and investments; the down payment for the first home came from joint savings, but title was taken in Steve’s name.
- Between 1968 and 1979, they acquired 14 properties (most for investment), with many located in California; acquisitions were made by joint decision using pooled resources.
- Jonne contributed earnings and substantial nonfinancial services, including domestic work and work connected to the properties (recordkeeping, repairs, and management assistance).
- After separation, Jonne sued seeking an undivided one-half interest in property accumulated during cohabitation, asserting an agreement to share.
- The trial court found an implied contract to share equally and awarded Jonne a one-half interest in certain real property, then later appointed a receiver over Steve’s real property.
- Steve appealed both the property division judgment and the receivership order; the appeals were consolidated.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported finding an implied-in-fact contract between nonmarital cohabitants to share equally in property acquired during the relationship.
2. Whether any property-sharing agreement was unenforceable as based on illegal or meretricious (sexual) consideration.
3. Whether appointing a receiver over Steve’s real property was a proper exercise of the trial court’s discretion to protect and enforce Jonne’s adjudicated interests.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment recognizing an implied contract to share equally in property acquired during cohabitation.
- The court held the agreement was enforceable because it was supported by lawful, nonsexual consideration, including pooled earnings and domestic and property-related services.
- The court affirmed the receivership order as within the trial court’s equitable authority and discretion to preserve and manage the property and protect Jonne’s interest.
- The court applied substantial evidence review to the implied-contract finding and declined to reweigh credibility or conflicting evidence.

## Legal Principles

- California courts may enforce express or implied agreements between nonmarital cohabitants regarding property rights if the agreement is not expressly and inseparably based on sexual services.
- An implied-in-fact agreement may be proven by the parties’ conduct, including pooling income, joint financial arrangements, joint acquisition decisions, and representations consistent with shared ownership.
- Domestic labor, financial contributions, and services connected to property acquisition or management can supply lawful consideration for a cohabitant property-sharing contract.
- Appellate review of implied-contract findings is for substantial evidence; credibility determinations and weighing of evidence are for the trial court.
- A receiver may be appointed as an equitable remedy to preserve and manage disputed property and prevent dissipation or encumbrance that would defeat an adjudicated interest.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed enforcement of an implied cohabitant agreement to share equally in property acquired through joint efforts and resources, rejected an illegality challenge because consideration was not sexual services, and upheld a receivership to safeguard and administer the property pending enforcement of the judgment.


Alderson v. Alderson, 180 Cal. App. 3d 450 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986)