The Law Office of Edward Misleh
The Law Office of Edward Misleh
Skip to content
  • Home Page
  • Areas of Practice
    • Divorce Attorney
    • Domestic Violence Attorney
    • Child Custody Attorney
    • Child Support Attorney
    • Spousal Support Attorney
    • Community Property Attorney
    • Guardianship Attorney
    • Family Law Attorney
    • Adoption Attorney
    • California Attorney Blog
  • Resources
    • Forms
    • California Attorney Blog
    • Our Office
    • Website Search
    • Site Map
  • The Law Offices
  • Contact Us

-

Home » Areas of Practice » Family Law » Palimony

Palimony

Posted on May 5, 2018October 27, 2019 by edmisleh

Palimony

Palimony refers to support payments that can be made to unmarried partners following a breakup.  These lawsuits are often called “Palimony Actions” or “Marvin Action.”  Such support payments have been permitted in California ever since a 1976 decision in the state Supreme Court which addressed premarital cohabitation.  Requests for support based on premarital cohabitation are not made through the family law courts because it’s not part of a divorce proceeding – palimony lawsuits are not family law matters.  Instead, these claims are filed as general civil actions, usually in conjunction with breach of contract or even implied partnership claims, among others.

California does not recognize common law marriages unless it was a common law marriage that was validly created in another state.  California does allow one partner to recover under a palimony action or as a putative spouse.

Marvin v Marvin

Palimony law in California began receiving notice when the actor Lee Marvin was sued by his live-in girlfriend, Michelle Marvin.  [Marvin v. Marvin (1976) 18 Cal.3d 660 [134 Cal.Rptr. 815, 557 P.2d 106].  In this case, the court ruled that Michelle must prove some other underlying basis for her claim, such as an express or implied contract.

The Marvin Decision

Michelle alleged that she and Lee Marvin entered into an oral agreement which provided that “while the parties lived together they would combine their efforts and earnings and would share equally any and all property accumulated as a result of their efforts whether individual or combined.”  Further, that they agreed that Michelle would “render her services as a companion, homemaker, housekeeper and cook.”  Michelle filed suit based on a contract and property rights, and sought to impose a constructive trust upon one half of the property acquired during the course of the relationship.

A Contract Requires Valid Consideration

The trial court granted a judgment in favor of Lee Marvin, holding that the alleged agreement was unenforceable – Michelle lost.  The California Supreme Court reversed, stating that “a contract between nonmarital partners is unenforceable only to the extent that it explicitly rests upon the immoral and illicit consideration of meretricious sexual services” – you cannot have a contract for sex.  The Court held in summary, we base our opinion on the principle that adults who voluntarily live together and engage in sexual relations are nonetheless as competent as any other persons to contract respecting their earnings and property rights . . . . So long as the agreement does not rest upon illicit meretricious consideration, the parties may order their economic affairs as they choose, and no policy precludes the courts from enforcing such contracts – Michelle wins because their contract was not solely for sex.

The Supreme Court went on to address the issue of “the property rights of a nonmarital partner in the absence of an express contract.”  Prior California cases had refused to enforce implied contracts between nonmarital cohabitants.  The Supreme Court overruled that line of cases, holding that in the absence of an express agreement the plaintiff might be able to establish an implied contract or implied partnership, and might be able to invoke such remedies as constructive trust, resulting trust, and quantum meruit.  In short, you can claim your interest in a property if you can prove an oral or implied contract.

Other Equitable Relief

In a footnote to Marvin decision, the Supreme Court stated that it did not “preclude the evolution of additional equitable remedies to protect the expectations of the parties to a nonmarital relationship in cases in which existing remedies prove inadequate.”  The express intention of the Court’s opinion was simply to treat nonmarital cohabitants “as we do any other unmarried persons.”

Palimony as Spousal Support

A palimony action can be asserted for support, much like a spouse has a right to spousal support (alimony).  However, a palimony suit is not a dissolution [of marriage].  The Supreme Court in Marvin expressly declined to treat unmarried cohabitants like married persons, overruling two prior decisions of the Court of Appeal which had applied the Family Law Act to unmarried cohabitants.  California courts have held that trial courts in divorce proceedings do not have jurisdiction over Marvin claims arising out of premarital cohabitation.  [In re Marriage of Johnson (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 57 [191 Cal.Rptr. 545].  (A Marvin claim filed in a civil action may, however, be consolidated with a dissolution proceeding. Id.]

Palimony  Distinguished from Spousal Support

An award of spousal support may not be based on the parties’ cohabitation before marriage.  [In re Marriage of Bukaty (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 143 [225 Cal.Rptr. 492]].  Married couples cannot get spousal support based on pre-marriage considerations.  It may be wise to assert a palimony action in lieu of a divorce action should the parties have lived together longer than they were married.

A Marvin case may not be processed in the superior court under the special family law rules.  [Schafer v. Superior Court (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 305 [225 Cal.Rptr. 513]].  Any palimony action must be addressed as a civil proceeding and not as a family law court action.
Jurisdiction standards applicable to domestic relations cases do not apply to Marvin actions.  [Kroopf v. Guffey (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 1351, 1357-1358 [228 Cal.Rptr. 807]]. Residency requirements which must be met in a divorce are not applicable in a palimony action.

Palimony  Discharged in Bankruptcy

The obligation to pay support pursuant to a stipulated judgment in a Marvin action is dischargeable in bankruptcy.  [In re James P. Doyle (9th Cir. BAP 1986) 70 B.R. 106].  An order to pay spousal support is not dischargeable in a bankruptcy action.  An order to pay support from a palimony action is dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Temporary Spousal Support

A former unmarried partner is not entitled to an award of pendente lite support.  [Friedman v. Friedman 20 Cal.App.4th 876 (1993)].  Pendente lite support is also known as “temporary spousal support” and is support ordered during a pending dissolution.  There is no such period in a palimony action and support is received once a final order is entered determining the amount of support.

Proof of an Express or Implied Contract

The Supreme Court’s decision in the first Marvin case reversed a judgment on the pleadings and remanded the case for further proceedings.  Thereafter, Michelle Marvin’s claims were heard at a bench trial (before a judge) who found that the parties never agreed to share their property and that Lee Marvin did not agree to support Michelle.  Nevertheless, the trial court awarded Michelle $104,000 for the purpose of allowing her to be rehabilitated or to learn new employable skills.  [Marvin v. Marvin (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 871 [176 Cal.Rptr. 555]].  The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the award was improper because “there is nothing in the trial court’s findings to suggest that such an award is warranted to protect the expectations of both parties.”  In a footnote, the court noted that while the Marvin decision spoke of the evolution of additional equitable remedies, a court of equity “may not create totally new substantive rights under the guise of doing equity.”

Right to Relief

Another “rehabilitative” award was reversed in Taylor v. Polackwich (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 1014, 1021 [194 Cal.Rptr. 8], in which the court of appeal stated:  “[W]hile a rehabilitative award is a proper means of enforcing rights which cannot otherwise be adequately enforced, an equitable remedy may not be employed to grant rehabilitation to one who has no underlying right to relief on any theory.”  In short, the primary “right” granted by Marvin is simply the right every person has to seek enforcement of his or her lawful contracts.

Marvin Requires Cohabitation

In Taylor v. Fields, the plaintiff, Taylor, had a relationship with a married man, Fields, for 42 years.  After Fields died, Taylor sued his widow, alleging breach of an agreement by Fields to take care of Taylor financially.  [Taylor v. Fields (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 653 [224 Cal.Rptr. 186]].

On appeal, the Court of Appeal stated that the relationship alleged by Taylor was “nothing more than that of a legally married man and his mistress.”  The alleged contract rested on meretricious considerations and was unenforceable.  The Court of Appeal noted that in Marvin, and the cases cited therein, the courts “upheld agreements where the parties lived together and relied on agreements not based on meretricious consideration.”  The court then discussed cases involving claims by cohabitants for loss of consortium or wrongful death, noting one case which had extended the right to sue for loss of consortium to cohabitants who engaged in “stable and significant” relationships.  The “Fields Court ” then held that cohabitation is a prerequisite to recovery in a Marvin-type action and that “Taylor’s contract with Fields is unenforceable because there is no showing of stable and significant cohabitation . . . .”  In so holding, the court stated: While Taylor avers she and Fields occasionally spent weekends together and registered as husband and wife, such claims are inadequate to bring their relationship within Marvin principles.

Cohabitation Unnecessary

In another case, the court backed away from the absolutist language in Taylor v. Fields, stating: “Cohabitation is necessary not in and of itself, but rather, because from cohabitation flows the rendition of domestic services, which services amount to lawful consideration for a contract between the parties.”  [Bergen v. Wood (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 854 [18 Cal.Rptr.2d 75].  The “Bergen Court” opens the door challenging the “cohabitation requirement” by holding that the only requirement is that the contract be supported by some lawful consideration severable from the sexual relationship (whether or not that consideration takes the form of “domestic services”).  The correct rule on cohabitation was stated by the Court of Appeal for the Fourth District as follows: “[C]ohabitation is not a prerequisite to the finding of an implied agreement between unmarried persons concerning their property.”   [ Milian v. De Leon (1986)181 Cal.App.3d 1185, 1193 [226 Cal.Rptr. 831]].

CALL NOW TO MAKE AN APPOINTMENT

321-951-9164

For more information about cohabitation, spouses, and divorce, click on one of the following links:

Marvin Claim

Legal Separation

Putative Spouse

Simple Divorce

Divorce

Spousal Support

California Family Law Attorney

California Divorce Attorney

Family Law

California Prenuptial Agreement

Law Offices of Edward Misleh

Web Site Search

This disclaimer provides that any information provided on this website by The Law  Offices of Edward Misleh, APC is strictly informational and should not be interpreted or considered as legal advice.  If you have a legal concern, you should contact our office to speak with a licensed California Attorney.  Delaying to contact an attorney could result in harm to your interests.

Attorney-Client Relationship

No Attorney-Client Relationship Created by use of this Website: Neither your receipt of information from this website, nor your use of this website to contact The Law Offices of Edward Misleh, APC or one of its attorneys creates an attorney-client relationship between you and The Law Offices of Edward Misleh, APC. As a matter of policy, The Law Offices of Edward Misleh, APC does not accept a new client without first investigating for possible conflicts of interests and obtaining a signed engagement letter. Accordingly, you should not use this website to provide confidential information about a legal matter of yours to The Law Offices of Edward Misleh, APC.

Contacting us by telephone, email or other means, or transmitting information to us, will not establish an attorney-client relationship. The attorney-client relationship can only be established after we have determined that we are able and willing to accept the engagement and we have entered into a written engagement agreement. Until then, do not send any confidential information to us unless we specifically request it. Information communicated without such authorization may not be treated as confidential, secret or otherwise be protected from disclosure, and The Law Offices of Edward Misleh, APC will not be precluded from representing parties adverse to the sender of such information in any matter.

No Legal Advice Intended

This website includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances. You should contact an attorney for advice on specific legal problems.

No Guarantee of Results

Many of the practice summaries and individual attorney biography on this website describe results obtained in matters handled for The Law Offices of Edward Misleh, APC clients. These descriptions are meant only to provide information about the activities and experience of our attorney. They are not intended as a guarantee that the same or similar results can be obtained in every matter undertaken by our attorney; and, you should not assume that a similar result can be obtained in a legal matter of interest to you. The outcome of a particular matter can depend on a variety of factors—including the specific factual and legal circumstances, the ability of opposing counsel, and, often, unexpected developments beyond the control of any client or attorney.

Third Party Websites

As a convenience, this website may provide links to third-party websites. Such linked websites are not under the control of The Law Offices of Edward Misleh, APC, and The Law Offices of Edward Misleh, APC assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of the contents of such websites.

No Warranty or Liability

The information in this site is provided “AS-IS,” without representation or warranty of any kind, either express or implied, including, without limitation, any representation or warranty as to suitability, reliability, applicability, accuracy, merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, non-infringement, result, outcome or any other matter. We do not represent or warrant that such information is or will be up-to-date, complete or accurate, or free from errors, viruses, spyware, malware, adware, worms or other malicious code, or will function to meet your requirements.

You agree that we are not liable to you or others in any way for any damages of any kind or under any theory arising from this site, your access to or use of or reliance on the information in this site, including, but not limited to, liability or damages under contract, tort or other theories or any damages caused by lost data, malicious code, denials of service (including computer crashes), business interruption or other commercial damages or losses, even if we may have been advised of the possibility of such damages.

Authorized Practice of Law

The jurisdiction in which our attorney is licensed to practice is in the State of California. The ability of our attorney to engage in any activities on behalf of a client outside that attorney’s state of licensure is subject to state statutes and professional codes and court rules. The Law Offices of Edward Misleh, APC does not seek, and this website is not intended to solicit, legal employment outside our attorney’s states of licensure that would constitute the unauthorized practice of law.

Intellectual Property Owned by The Law Offices of Edward Misleh, APC

Except as otherwise noted, all trademarks, photographs and other artwork, video clips, and written materials used in this site are protected by copyright laws and are owned or licensed by The Law Offices of Edward Misleh, APC. You may download information from our site for your temporary, personal, non-commercial use only. None of these items may be copied, reproduced, downloaded, posted, transmitted, broadcast or otherwise distributed in any manner without our prior written consent.

Privacy Policy
Site Map
Avvo - Rate your Lawyer. Get Free Legal Advice.
We gladly accept Visa, MasterCard, Discover, American Express.
Copyright 2023 The Law Offices of Edward Misleh, APC
Web site hosting by All Brevard Web Sites