Marvin Actions
California palimony law protects parties who have made agreements and which relate to their . mutual financial circumstances and which can create obligations of one party to financially support the other or to equally divide property acquired during the relationship. It is wise for individuals contemplating cohabitating to have a cohabitation agreement. California does not recognize common-law marriage. In order for non-married individuals to own “common” property together, in the absence of a deed, or some other joint ownership document, or have obligations to financially support one or the other, there must be an agreement express or implied, that provides for either of these occurrences. Usually agreements of this . nature encompass a romantic cohabitation relationship that existed over long a period of time. Unmarried parties can enforce promises of support or property rights through a civil court action rather than in family court.
Although cohabitation is not a prerequisite to these civil court actions, parties cohabitating and sharing income and/or performing duties in exchange for consideration from the other party, those facts-- i.e. cohabitation--and mutual sharing of income or joint bank accounts--are evidence of an agreement that property acquired during the relationship is jointly owned or that one party is obligated to support the other.
These cohabitation civil actions are typically referred to as Marvin or “palimony” claims, named after the famous case involving the late actor Lee Marvin. The actor was sued for financial support by his long-term girlfriend, Michelle Triola “Marvin”. She and Lee had lived together for many years. Michelle, who had performed various domestic duties while Lee pursued his acting career, claimed Lee owed her financial support for life as well as an equal . distribution of the assets that had been acquired during their long-term (in excess of 18 years) relationship. She sued Mr. Martin in a civil court following the termination of their relationship.
She alleged Mr. Martin breached his agreement to support her for life and that property acquired during their relationship was jointly owned. In the Marvin case the California Supreme Court expressly refused to treat unmarried cohabitants like married persons. The court did however find that agreements (including oral contracts) between unmarried partners should be enforced like any contract between unmarried people.
A Marvin claim is basically a breach of contract claim that is filed in civil court and not in a family law court. The statute of limitations (the period within which a plaintiff must commence . the action) for a Marvin claim will depend upon which legal theories are asserted. There are many possible legal theories one may assert, such as breach of express or implied contract, implied partnership or joint venture, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, constructive fraud, the imposition of constructive or resulting trust, and additional legal theories and remedies. When there is a breach of an agreement to share property and acquisitions equally, or to provide lifetime support, the injured party can seek redress through a Marvin claim. These claims are difficult to prove unless the evidence strongly shows that during the relationship the parties’ conduct conforms to the proof the claimant is maintaining constituted the agreement.
If you are considering commencing or you need to defend a Marvin claim, Nathan James of SEIFER, MURKEN, DESPINA, JAMES and TEICHMAN, ALC will provide tireless, compassionate, yet aggressive representation.
Having To Defend A Marvin Action Or Claim
When one is defending a Marvin action, he or she can assert all of the defenses which are generally available in contract actions, plus a few which are specifically applicable to Marvin claims. Typical defenses include fraud, illegality, lack of capacity, mistake, statute of frauds, the expiration of the statute of limitations, meretricious consideration (if sexual acts form an inseparable part of the contract) and other aspects of the contract which may be contrary to public policy, and/or the other party’s breach of the agreement. Further there are equitable defenses which may apply, including the defense of unclean hands”. If one party owns property, real or personal, and there is a deed or other written evidence of ownership in one party’s name alone, a presumption is created in favor of the owner of legal title for such property. A major issue in a Marvin claim is proving that the mutual ownership of assets and/or lifetime support agreement actually exists.
If you are considering asserting a Marvin claim or defending against a Marvin claim, it is imperative to retain a professional who has experience in civil litigation. Nathan James of SEIFER, MURKEN, DESPINA, JAMES and TEICHMAN, ALC has 38 years of civil litigation . experience and is certified by the California State Bar as a specialist in family law.
Nathan James and SEIFER, MURKEN, DESPINA, JAMES and TEICHMAN, ALC serves San Francisco, Marin, Alameda and other Bay Area counties representing Marvin claimants or . defendants and has extensive experience in the area of civil litigation and California family law matters. Contact him online or call 415-749-5900 to schedule a confidential consultation.
This is intended to be a summary description and should not be relied upon as legal advice. More
information may be obtained by consulting with Nathan James.
H. Nathan James
SEIFER, MURKEN, DESPINA, JAMES and TEICHMAN, ALC,
2135 Lombard Street| San Francisco, CA 94123
Phone: 415-749-5900 | Fax: 415-749-0344 | San Francisco Law Office Map
Email: njames@smdjlaw.com