## Facts

- Catherine E. Lazzarevich and John L. Lazzarevich married in 1921.
- John obtained an interlocutory divorce decree in 1932; a final divorce decree was entered in 1933.
- Catherine resumed cohabitation with John in 1935 believing they remained married, based on John’s representations and courthouse information indicating no final decree.
- Catherine performed extensive domestic, business-related, and financial services and contributions for John from 1935 into 1946, without an express compensation agreement.
- In August 1945, Catherine learned the 1933 final divorce decree existed; she separated but later returned after John promised to remarry her (which did not occur).
- Catherine sued to recover the reasonable value of her post-divorce services and contributions.
- The trial court awarded $2,350 and applied the statute of limitations to bar recovery for services rendered before a specified cutoff date.
- Catherine appealed, contending the award and limitations cutoff were erroneous given the evidence of services and benefits conferred.

## Issues

1. Whether a cohabitant who, in good faith, believed a valid marriage existed may recover the reasonable value of services and contributions after learning the parties were legally divorced.
2. Whether, and to what extent, the statute of limitations limits recovery for services rendered over a multi-year period.
3. Whether the evidence required increasing the trial court’s award.

## Decision

- The court held Catherine was entitled to recover on a restitution/quantum meruit theory for services and contributions rendered while she acted under a good-faith belief in a valid marriage.
- The court rejected the trial court’s overly restrictive limitations cutoff and permitted recovery for a broader, non-barred period supported by the evidence.
- The court modified the judgment by increasing the award to $10,277.50 and otherwise affirmed the judgment as modified.

## Legal Principles

- A person who cohabits and renders valuable services under an honest, reasonable, but mistaken belief in a valid marriage may recover the reasonable value of benefits conferred when the other party would otherwise be unjustly enriched.
- Cohabitation in a purported marital relationship does not, by itself, establish that services were gratuitous; absent evidence of donative intent, an obligation to pay may be implied from the circumstances.
- In quantum meruit/restitution claims involving continuing services, the statute of limitations may bar only the portion of recovery attributable to time-barred services, allowing compensation for non-barred services proven at trial.
- An appellate court may modify a judgment amount when the record supports a higher valuation of compensable, non-barred services.

## Conclusion

The court treated the claimant as a putative spouse for restitution purposes and held she could recover in quantum meruit for valuable services rendered in good-faith reliance on a continuing marriage, modifying the judgment to increase the award and applying the statute of limitations in a less restrictive manner.


Lazzarevich v. Lazzarevich, 200 P.2d 49 (Cal. Ct. App. 1948)