## Facts

- Paul A. Cary and Janet E. Cary lived together for more than eight years, held themselves out as married, and conducted business as spouses (including joint tax returns), but they never legally married and both knew it.
- Four children were born during the relationship; Paul supported them and acknowledged them as his, and official records listed both as the parents.
- Paul worked as the wage earner; Janet generally stayed home caring for the children and household.
- During cohabitation, the parties acquired real and personal property primarily through Paul’s earnings; the parties conceded that, if they had been married, the property would have been community property.
- Paul filed a superior court petition seeking nullity under Civil Code section 4001; the central dispute at trial was Janet’s interest in the property acquired with Paul’s earnings.
- The superior court awarded Janet a one-half interest in the accumulated property and ordered equal division; Paul appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether, under the Family Law Act, a court in a nullity proceeding may equitably divide property acquired through one partner’s earnings during a long-term cohabitation that functioned as a family unit, despite the absence of a valid marriage.
2. Whether a party’s knowledge that no legal marriage existed may be treated as “fault” or “guilt” to bar or reduce that party’s share of property acquired during the relationship.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment.
- The court agreed the relationship between the parties and their children constituted a “family” within the broad scope of the Family Law Act.
- The court upheld the equal division of real and personal property acquired with Paul’s earnings during the relationship.
- The court rejected using moral blame or punitive concepts to determine property rights in this family setting.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Family Law Act, concepts of individual “fault,” “guilt,” or “punishment” are not to be used to determine family property rights.
- A family-like relationship—cohabitation, holding out as spouses, raising children together, and organizing finances jointly—may be treated as a family unit for applying the Act’s property policies, even if the parties knowingly lacked a valid marriage.
- The community property rationale rests on the idea that both partners contribute to the economic prosperity of the household, including through domestic labor and child-rearing, supporting equal division when the parties’ conduct and concessions show a shared economic community.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed an equal division of property accumulated during an eight-year family-like cohabitation, holding that the Family Law Act’s no-fault policy and community property theory supported treating the parties’ relationship as an economic community for purposes of allocating property in a nullity proceeding.


In re Marriage of Cary, 34 Cal. App. 3d 345, 109 Cal. Rptr. 862 (Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1973)