Can unmarried cohabitating partners claim property rights based on implied agreements or equitable principles when their relationship ends?

Michelle Marvin and Lee Marvin cohabitated for seven years from 1964 to 1970 without marrying. Michelle alleged they had an oral agreement to combine their efforts and earnings, share property equally, and for her to give up her career to be a homemaker in exchange for lifelong support from Lee. During their relationship, substantial real and personal property was acquired, including motion picture rights worth over $1 million, all held in Lee's name. In May 1970, Lee compelled Michelle to leave their shared residence. He continued to provide support until November 1971, after which he refused further financial assistance.

Following the cessation of support, Michelle initiated legal action against Lee. She sought to enforce the alleged oral contract, demanding half of the property acquired during their relationship and ongoing support payments. This lawsuit aimed to establish and uphold the validity of their purported agreement, despite the absence of a formal marriage contract.

The plaintiff initially filed suit against the defendant in the trial court. The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of the defendant. Dissatisfied with this outcome, the plaintiff appealed the judgment to a higher court. The case ultimately reached the California Supreme Court, which agreed to hear it in order to resolve conflicting decisions from lower courts regarding property rights in nonmarital relationships.

(Tobriner, J.)

Yes. Unmarried cohabitating partners can claim property rights based on implied agreements or equitable principles when their relationship ends. The reasonable expectations of parties in nonmarital relationships deserve protection under the law. Express contracts between nonmarital partners are enforceable, except when explicitly founded on meretricious sexual services. In the absence of express agreements, courts must examine the conduct of the parties to determine if an implied contract, partnership agreement, joint venture, or other tacit understanding exists. Equitable remedies such as quantum meruit, constructive trust, or resulting trust may be applied when warranted by the facts of the case. This approach recognizes the prevalence and social acceptance of nonmarital relationships in modern society while rejecting the notion of punishing parties for their nonmarital status. Common law principles of contracts and equity apply to nonmarital relationships, as the Family Law Act does not govern property distribution in such cases. The conduct of the parties, their tacit understandings, and the nature of their relationship are all relevant factors in determining property rights. This approach ensures fairness and protects the reasonable expectations of parties who have lived together in a nonmarital relationship, acknowledging the complex realities of modern domestic partnerships. The application of these principles allows courts to address the unique circumstances of each case, providing a flexible framework for resolving property disputes between unmarried cohabitants.

Concurrence/Dissent (Clark, J.) Agree with allowing recovery based on express or implied-in-fact agreements between nonmarital partners. However, the majority's broad indication of recovery based on equitable principles and quantum meruit lacks clear guidelines. This approach may lead to uncertainty in future cases and potentially overreach the court's role in defining property rights for nonmarital couples. The court should have provided more specific criteria for applying these equitable remedies to ensure consistent application and avoid unintended consequences in future disputes.