## Facts

- Michelle Marvin and Lee Marvin cohabited without marrying.
- Michelle sued seeking property and support, alleging express and implied agreements to pool efforts and earnings, share property, and that Lee would support her.
- After a prior appellate reversal allowing such claims to be tried, the case was tried to the court on remand.
- The trial court found no express or implied agreement to pool earnings, share property, or for Michelle to give up her career, and found Lee did not agree to support her for life.
- The trial court also found Lee never had any obligation to support Michelle, she suffered no compensable damage, and she benefited economically and socially from the relationship.
- Despite these findings, the trial court awarded Michelle $104,000 as “economic rehabilitation.”
- Lee appealed only the $104,000 award.

## Issues

1. Whether the $104,000 “economic rehabilitation” award was outside the issues framed by the pleadings and the theories actually tried.
2. Whether a court may impose a rehabilitative, support-like obligation between unmarried cohabitants absent contract, unjust enrichment, or other recognized equitable grounds.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal modified the judgment by deleting the $104,000 award and otherwise affirmed.
- The court held the rehabilitative award was procedurally improper because it was not embraced by the pleadings or tried by consent.
- The court held the award lacked any legal or equitable basis given the trial court’s findings of no contract, no obligation, no damage, and no unjust enrichment.
- The court rejected the trial court’s attempt to create a support-like remedy untethered to established contract or restitution doctrines.

## Legal Principles

- Relief must conform to the issues framed by the pleadings or those tried by consent; a court may not award remedies on an unpleaded, untried theory.
- Between unmarried cohabitants, monetary relief generally requires an enforceable express or implied agreement or a recognized equitable doctrine (e.g., restitution-based relief where supported by facts).
- A court may not award quasi-alimony or “rehabilitative” support merely because a relationship resembled marriage; absent contract, detriment, or unjust enrichment, there is no basis for a monetary award.

## Conclusion

The court eliminated the trial court’s rehabilitative award because it was beyond the pleadings and inconsistent with findings negating any contractual or equitable entitlement, reaffirming that post-cohabitation relief must rest on contract or established equitable doctrines rather than need-based support.


Marvin v. Marvin, 122 Cal. App. 3d 871 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981)