Marvin vs.

Marvin

In the 1960s the number of unmarried couples living together increased dramatically.
Many assumed that by not marrying they would be able to separate without tiresome and
expensive court proceedings. In the 1976 case of Marvin vs. Marvin, Lee Marvin learned
firsthand just how wrong that assumption can be. Domestic Relations Law affords various
remedies between divorcing spouses, such as alimony and property distribution. These
remedies typically don’t apply to unmarried cohabitants who separate. Thus many unmarried
cohabitants invoke contract law and equitable doctrines such as restitution. Unmarried
cohabitants who separate often invoke restitution, relying on the value of domestic services
provided during the relationship to obtain similar relief to that available married couples. In
1964 Michelle Marvin moved in with Lee Marvin though Lee was legally married to Betty
Marvin. Lee and Michelle lived together for about five and a half years. During that time the
two behaved like a married couple. Together the couple accumulated substantial wealth and
property in Lee’s name including motion picture rights worth over a million dollars. In May
1970 Michelle left Lee’s home. Lee kept providing Michelle until November the following
year, when he cut off further support. Michelle than in California state court, alleging that
Lee’s cutting off support, breached an express oral contract. Lee moved to dismiss Michelle’s
complaint. The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings for the defendant.

The trial court erred in granting defendant judgment on the pleading because the
plaintiff’s complaint states a cause of action for breach of an express contract and can be
amended to state a cause of action independent of allegations of express contract.

Defendant claims that the alleged contract should not be enforced because it violated
public policy due to its close relationship to the immoral character of the relationship
between plaintiff and defendant. Courts should look to the consideration underlying such
agreements to determine the enforcements.

Defendant secondly claims that the contract violated public policy because it
impaired the community property rights of Betty Marvin, his lawful wife. Defendant next
contents that enforcement is banned by civil code requiring all contract from marriage
settlements to be in writing. However, a marriage settlement is an agreement in
contemplation of marriage, and present contract does not fall within this definition.
 The court examined how the distribution of property acquired in a non-marital
relationship should be governed. Court allowed not only plaintiff’s claim that an express
contract existed and should be enforced, but also found that implied contracts may be found
in such situations. In the end, in Marvin v. Marvin, the California Supreme Court ruled that
Triola had not proven the existence of a contract between herself and Mr. Marvin that gave
her an interest in his property. These contracts may be express or implied, oral or written—
but they must be provable in any case.

California court gave michelle marvin interest to lee’s property.