Facts
- Michelle Triola Marvin and Lee Marvin cohabited from October 1964 to May 1970 but never married.
- Michelle adopted Lee’s surname and held herself out publicly as his wife.
- Title to property acquired during the relationship was taken in Lee’s name.
- Michelle alleged an express agreement to pool efforts and earnings, share equally in property accumulated through their efforts, and that Lee would provide lifetime financial support.
- Michelle alleged she left a lucrative entertainment career to work full-time for Lee’s interests as companion, homemaker, housekeeper, and cook.
- After separation, Lee made some support payments but stopped in November 1971.
- In 1972, Michelle sued seeking declaratory relief regarding property rights and financial support based on contract and equitable theories (including constructive trust).
Issues
- Whether California’s Family Law Act governs distribution of property acquired during an unmarried cohabitation relationship.
- Whether express contracts between unmarried cohabitants concerning earnings, property, and support are unenforceable as against public policy due to the parties’ sexual relationship.
- Whether, absent an express agreement, a court may recognize implied-in-fact agreements (including partnership/joint venture) or award restitutionary/equitable relief between cohabitants.
- Whether judgment on the pleadings, without leave to amend, was proper where the complaint alleged an express agreement and related equitable theories.
Decision
- The California Supreme Court reversed the judgment on the pleadings and remanded.
- The Family Law Act does not govern property distribution for unmarried cohabitants.
- Courts should enforce express agreements between nonmarital partners, except to the extent an agreement is explicitly founded on consideration of sexual services.
- If no express agreement is proven, courts may examine conduct to determine whether an implied contract, partnership/joint venture, or other tacit understanding existed.
- Courts may also award quantum meruit or impose constructive or resulting trusts when supported by the facts.
- Michelle’s complaint stated at least one valid cause of action (breach of express contract) and could be amended to plead additional viable theories; dismissal without leave to amend was error.
Legal Principles
- Statutory marital property and dissolution rules under the Family Law Act do not automatically apply to unmarried cohabitants.
- Express contracts between unmarried cohabitants about earnings, property, expenses, or support are enforceable under ordinary contract principles unless the contract explicitly trades for sexual services.
- Courts may infer implied-in-fact agreements from the parties’ conduct, including arrangements resembling partnership or joint venture.
- Restitution and equitable remedies (including quantum meruit and constructive or resulting trusts) may be available to prevent unjust retention of benefits.
- Pleadings in cohabitation disputes should not be dismissed at the outset if they allege nonsexual contractual consideration and facts that could support contract or equitable relief.
Conclusion
The court held that unmarried cohabitants are not governed by marital property statutes, but they may enforce nonsexual agreements about property and support and, failing proof of an express agreement, may pursue implied-contract and equitable remedies; the plaintiff was entitled to attempt to prove such claims at trial.