|
It is common knowledge that California is a community property state. In community property states, spouses are considered joint owners of nearly all assets and debts acquired in marriage. Generally speaking, community property encompasses assets earned or acquired by one or both spouses during the marriage while they lived in the community property state, as well as debt taken on by either spouse during the marriage.
While the concept of community property applies specifically to married couples, I have received questions from potential clients, who are unmarried but lived together in the same house for several years while building a life with each other, as to recourses for real property rights and claims to assets attained during the relationship when the relationship unfortunately comes to an end.
Consider the following situation: Jane and John entered into a romantic relationship. While remaining unmarried, Jane and John planned for a long future as a couple and decided to move in together. John purchased a house, fronting the down payment and receiving title in his name only. Subsequently, Jane contributed partially to the remaining mortgage payments, and the two lived together for five years. During this time, Jane undertook a lot of remodeling projects on John’s house on her own, including painting the house, landscaping, and hiring contractors out of her own pocket to install new flooring. Moreover, it was mutually agreed between Jane and John that Jane would predominantly provide homemaker services, such as cooking and cleaning around the house, as John was the sole income-earner. After five years, Jane and John terminated their relationship, and John kicked Jane out of his house.
Is there any recourse for Jane to claim partial ownership interest in John’s house as well as claim half of any other property acquired during the five-year relationship?
The answer, as it so often is in the legal world, is, “It depends.” In the above situation, Jane may have grounds to sue John to establish property rights and to request financial support by bringing what is known as a Marvin claim.
What is a Marvin Claim?
A Marvin claim is a type of claim an unmarried member of a couple may have in California against the property of his or her partner. At its core, a Marvin claim is a breach of contract action meant to enforce an expressed or implied agreement for support or property sharing between non-marital partners after a split. In other words, in order to prevail on a Marvin claim, a party must prove that an agreement, whether express or implied, written or oral, existed between the partners to treat the disputed property as theirs together.
This type of claim derives its name from the landmark California Supreme Court decision Marvin v. Marvin (1976) 18 Cal.3d 660. This case involved the separation of prominent actor Lee Marvin and his long-term romantic partner and cohabitant Michelle Triola Marvin, after the two had lived together and held themselves out as spouses for seven years despite never being formally married. After the separation, Michelle filed a civil lawsuit against Lee, stating that he had promised to support her for life and arguing his failure to fulfill this promise was a breach of contract. Michelle further claimed a right to support payments and one-half of the cohabited property, which was in Lee’s name alone but was acquired during their cohabitation. Michelle and Lee entered an oral agreement to combine their efforts and earnings, and to share equally in all property accumulated in their relationship. Michelle gave up a promising career in the film industry because she claimed Lee promised to take care of her and support her for her entire life.
The case was appealed all the way up to the California Supreme Court, whose ultimate decision was twofold. With regard to Michelle, the Supreme Court ruled that she was unable to prove that there was a contract in place—which essentially defeated all of Michelle’s claims against Lee. However, the ruling also established that there is a standard by which agreements can be established between cohabitants and that these express or implied contracts are strong enough that courts may enforce them through financial support orders. In the decades since, the ruling in Marvin v. Marvin and the standards set therein have been frequently used as a precedent for unmarried partners to pursue property rights and financial support akin to alimony.
Do I have a Valid Marvin Claim?
Some important issues to consider in evaluating a Marvin claim include, but is not limited to, the following:
- How long did the parties live together?
- Did one of the parties support the other?
- Did both parties contribute towards the purchase of any property?
- Did one of the parties perform valuable services for the other?
- Did one of the parties perform valuable services for the other’s company or employer?
- Did the two people work together to create or enhance anything of value?
- Did the parties have any expressed or implied agreement regarding property sharing or support?
The most important consideration in a Marvin claim is whether an express or implied agreement existed between the cohabiting couple. There can be several ways to show there was an agreement to create financial reliance between the partners; the length of the committed relationship, whether children are involved, or whether one partner gave up a career or income-earning opportunity for the benefit of the partnership are all relevant factors.
Even if the agreement was not an express or oral agreement, a partner may still be able to receive support or property rights based on an implied, mutual understanding of household operations. For example, in the above example with Jane and John, if they both clearly agreed or mutually understood that John would be the breadwinner and Jane, in exchange, would manage the household and/or contribute to the upkeep of the house, thereby building “sweat equity” on said property, Jane may be able to seek compensation from John on the basis of her explicit contributions to the household and John’s understanding of her role in the context of their joint lives.
Conclusion
If you have been involved in a romantic, long-term relationship in California and the relationship came to an end, you may believe that you have the right to financial support or property based on promises that were made during the relationship. A takeaway from Marvin v. Marvin is that while you do have legal recourse in this situation, proving your right to reimbursement, support or property based on representations made during the relationship may be difficult to do. While relevant issues and factors to be considered are laid out above, if you believe you have a valid claim to property obtained during the course of your past relationship, you should consult with experienced counsel to guide you through the complexities involved with Marvin claims.
| 
