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 » Attorney Blog » Marvin Claim Defense

Marvin Claim Defense

Posted on October 25, 2019October 27, 2019 by edmisleh

Marvin Claim Defense

A Marvin claim defense is asserted against a party who has filed a complaint for a palimony action. In general, a Marvin claim defense is any defenses which are available to the parties of a contract.  However, there are others such as, a claim of “meretricious” consideration, which are peculiarly applicable to Marvin claims.


Statute of Limitations

One Marvin claim defense is asserting that the statute of limitations has run:  four years for written contracts [CCP 337(1)] and the two years for oral or implied contracts [CCP 339(1)]. [Kurokawa v. Blum (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 976 [245 Cal.Rptr. 463]].  Claims sounding in equity will generally be subject to the four-year statute contained in CCP 343.  [Whorton v. Dillingham (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 447, 457 [248 Cal.Rtpr. 411]; Nelson v. Nevel (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 132, 140 [201 Cal.Rptr. 93]].


Start of Statute of Limitations

Typically, for a Marvin claim defense, the statute of limitations will begin to run when the relationship ends. [See Estate of Fincher (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 343 [174 Cal.Rptr. 18], Whorton, supra, and Kurokawa, supra]. However, if the defendant continues to perform on a contract after the break up, the cause of action does not accrue, and the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the Defendant stops performing. [Cochran v. Cochran (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 378 [Cal.Rptr.2nd])].


Statute of Frauds

Another Marvin claim defense is to assert the Statute of Frauds.  Should a plaintiff have already provided services in reliance on the defendant’s express or implied promise, plaintiff will be able to assert the statute of frauds as a Marvin claim defense .  [See Marvin v. Marvin (1976) 18 Cal.3d 660, 674 fn. 9 [134 Cal.Rptr. 815, 557 P.2d 106];  Cline v. Festersen (1954) 128 Cal.App.2d 380 [275 P.2d 149];  Whorton v. Dillingham (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 447,456 [248 Cal.Rptr. 405]);  Byrne v. Laura (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1054 [60 Cal.Rptr.2d 908]].


Writing Requirement for Wills

California Probate Code section 105 requires that a contract to make a will be in writing.  A defendant can be estopped from asserting, as a Marvin claim defense, this code since it is a code addressing the statute of frauds which is not applicable should plaintiff have rendered performance.  [See Byrne v. Laura (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1054 [60 Cal.Rptr.2d 908]].


Meretricious Consideration Upheld

A typical Marvin claim defense is that any agreement was in exchange for sexual acts.  Under Marvin, a contract between unmarried persons is invalid “if sexual acts form an inseparable part of the consideration for the agreement.”  [Marvin, supra, 18 Cal.3d at 672].
The “meretricious consideration” defense was raised successfully in Jones v. Daly (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 500 [176 Cal.Rptr. 130] (demurrer sustained without leave to amend where complaint alleged that plaintiff agreed to act as “a lover, companion, homemaker, traveling companion, housekeeper and cook” for a same-sex partner);  Taylor v. Fields (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 653, 664-665 [224 Cal.Rptr. 186] (alleged agreement between a married man and his mistress was based on unlawful consideration);  and, Bergen v. Wood (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 854, 858-860 [18 Cal.Rptr.2d 75] (services as a social companion and hostess are inextricably intertwined with the sexual relationship and therefore cannot form the consideration for an agreement.)


Meretricious Consideration Defeated

The Marvin claim defense was defeated in Whorton v. Dillingham (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 447, 454 [248 Cal.Rptr. 405]).  In this case, the court found that plaintiff’s services as “chauffeur, bodyguard, social and business secretary, partner and counselor in real estate investments” were “of monetary value, and the type for which one would expect to be compensated” and therefore could be “characterized as consideration independent of the sexual aspect of the relationship.”  In another case, Alderson v. Alderson (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 450 [225 Cal.Rptr. 610], plaintiff’s agreement to do “whatever a wife does” did not explicitly rest on meretricious consideration, even though the plaintiff viewed engaging in sexual relations as part of her “role”).


Choice of Law

The state in which the parties entered into an agreement will have jurisdiction to enforce a Marvin action and any Marvin claim defense.  The law of that jurisdiction may govern the enforceability of the contract.  [Henderson v. Superior Court (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 583, 592-593 [142 Cal.Rptr. 478], a California decision holding that Florida law governed a Marvin claim arising out of a contract made in Florida]. Counsel should therefore check to see whether the parties’ home state follows Marvin, as not all states do. See, e.g., Hewitt v. Hewitt, 77 Ill.2d. 49, 349 N.E.2d 1204 (1979)).


Void Contract Made During Marriage

A contract may be void if, when it was entered into by the parties, one of them was married.   This Marvin claim defense arise from the rational that a contacts may be unenforceable if they promote divorce because they are against public policy.  [Marvin, supra, at 18 Cal.3d at 673]. However, the Marvin claim defense will not apply if the marriage was “beyond redemption” at the time of the agreement.  [Glickman v. Collins (1975) 13 Cal.3d 852, 857 [120 Cal.Rptr. 76, 533 P.2d 204];  Feldman v. Nassi (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 881, 885-887 [169 Cal.Rptr. 9])].


Contract Void for Vagueness

Unmarried cohabitants are rarely explicit about any agreement they may have regarding property sharing or support.  Where the alleged agreement is based on the defendant’s vague promises to “take care of” or “support” the plaintiff, the defendant may wish to argue that the contract is too indefinite to be enforced.  See, e.g., Hoxsie v. Clark (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 370 [44 Cal.Rptr. 399] where an alleged promise by a decedent to “take care” of the plaintiff in her will was “very vague and indefinite and therefore unenforceable.” The viability of this defense has been thrown into doubt by Byrne v. Laura (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1054 [60 Cal.Rptr.2d 908], a recent case which suggests that the modern trend disfavors holding contracts unenforceable for uncertainty, holding that where the evidence showed that the decedent expected to provide for the plaintiff’s support, that expectation should be fulfilled, with the amount of support to be ascertained in light of extrinsic evidence.


Plaintiff’s Breach of the Agreement

As with any contract, the Plaintiff’s breach of a Marvin agreement should discharge the Defendant’s obligations under the agreement. (See, 1 Witkin, Summary of California Law 719 (9th ed. 1987)). For example, depending on the facts, the plaintiff might be held to have breached the agreement if it was the plaintiff, rather than the defendant, who left the relationship, or if the plaintiff was unfaithful. (See Bower v. Weisman (S.D.N.Y. 1987) 674 F.Supp. 109, 111 (recognizing the possibility that a Marvin contract “might permit a term in which [the plaintiff] promised to forbear from intercourse with anyone else”)).


Lack of Mutuality

Often, the Plaintiff will allege – in essence – that the Plaintiff was free to leave the relationship and stop performing services at any time, but still receive post-relationship support from the Defendant (sometimes lifetime support). The defendant should argue that such an alleged contract lacks mutuality and is therefore illusory and unenforceable. (See Cox v. Hollywood Film Enterprises, Inc. 109 Cal.App.2d 320, 325 [240 P.2d 713] (1952), in which the court declined to interpret an ambiguous lease provision as allowing the tenants to terminate the lease at any time and thereafter collect a $5,000 “bonus” from the landlord).


Equitable Defenses

If the Plaintiff is asserting claims sounding in equity, defense counsel should consider the application of equitable defenses such as the defense of “unclean hands.” (See Taylor v. Fields, supra, 178 Cal.App.3d at 666).


Real Property Presumption

California Evidence Code section 662 states that the owner of legal title to property is presumed to be the owner of the full beneficial title.  This presumption may be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence.  [Toney v. Nolder 173 Cal.App.3d 791 [219 Cal.Rptr. 497] (1985); Tannehill v. Finch 188 Cal.App.3d 224 [232 Cal.Rptr. 749] (1986)].  A Marvin claim that includes a request to share interests in real property can be defeated using this defense.


CALL NOW TO MAKE AN APPOINTMENT

321-951-9164

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

Palimony

Cohabitation Claims

Marvin Claim

Putative Spouse

California Prenuptial Agreement

Legal Separation

Simple Divorce

Divorce

Spousal Support

California Divorce Attorney

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