## Facts

- Marian Vallera sued Concezio Vallera for separate maintenance and division of alleged community property, claiming a common-law marriage formed in Michigan on December 16, 1938.
- The parties began living together around May 1936 and cohabited for at least three years; the trial court found the relationship was meretricious.
- From January 1933 to December 15, 1938, Concezio was married to Ethel Chippo Vallera, and Marian knew of that marriage and the resulting legal disability to marry.
- Concezio’s marriage to Ethel was dissolved on December 15, 1938, but neither party learned of the dissolution until November 1939.
- The trial court found Marian and Concezio never contracted or attempted to contract a marriage in Michigan or elsewhere and never agreed to take each other as husband and wife.
- On July 6, 1940, Concezio entered into a valid marriage with Lido Cappello.
- The trial court denied separate maintenance, found no community property, but nevertheless awarded Marian a one-half tenant-in-common interest in property acquired between December 16, 1938 and July 6, 1940 (excluding property acquired by gift, devise, bequest, or descent).
- Concezio appealed the portion of the judgment declaring equal cotenancy in that property.

## Issues

1. Whether a person who knowingly cohabits in an illicit relationship, without a valid or putative marriage and without any agreement regarding property, is entitled to an equal tenant-in-common interest in property acquired during cohabitation by the other party’s efforts.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of California reversed the portion of the judgment awarding Marian an undivided one-half tenant-in-common interest.
- The court held that, absent a valid marriage, putative spouse status, or an express or implied property agreement, meretricious cohabitation does not create automatic cotenancy rights in property acquired by the other party.
- The trial court’s determinations denying separate maintenance and finding no community property were left undisturbed.

## Legal Principles

- A partner may share in property acquired during cohabitation only if there is a valid marriage, a putative marriage supported by a good-faith belief in the marriage’s validity, or an express or implied agreement concerning property rights.
- Putative spouse remedies require good-faith mistake; one who knows the other party is married and legally unable to marry cannot claim putative spouse status for that period.
- Courts will not create community-property-like or equal cotenancy interests based solely on illicit cohabitation where neither marital status nor contract supports shared ownership.

## Conclusion

Because Marian knowingly lived with Concezio while he was married and proved neither a valid or putative marriage nor any agreement to share property, she had no right to an automatic one-half tenant-in-common share in property acquired during their cohabitation, and the cotenancy award was reversed.


Vallera v. Vallera, 21 Cal. 2d 681 (Cal. 1943)