Marvin v. Marvin; (Sup. Ct. of CA, 1976); CB 200; Notes 23
Familial contracts; Court facilitates
- Facts: Michelle Marvin sues to recover damages for D’s promise (express K) to pay her a monthly sum to take care of her. She also says that it does not matter if there was an agreement or not b/c she has acted in a way that has benefited Marvin (quasi K in quantum meruit deserving of restitution damages).
- Claims: P asserts 3 causes of action:
- Express K: declaratory relief, asks the ct. to determine her K and property rights (no writing)
- Quasi K: Seeks to impose a constructive trust upon ½ of property acquired during relationship (unjust enrichment that would entitle her to equitable relief)
- Implied K: Parties conducted themselves in a manner that would imply a K that they both would reasonably infer that they had tacitly entered into an agreement to share asset.
- Holding: Ct found no evidence of express K. D had told P he did not agree w/ idea of community property. Also, a non-marital partner may recover in quantum meruit if they can show that the services were rendered w/ expectation of monetary reward.
- Rule: Non-marital partners are not entitled to division of community property, but the courts will instead enforce express agreements between the parties to the extent that these agreements do not rest on meretricious sexual services.
- Conflicting opinion: Hewitt v. Hewitt, CB 213 n. 4: couple had lived together as husband and wife. Implied K theory. Court rejects woman’s claim. Reasoning: state had legitimate interest in encouraging people to marry.
No comments:
Post a Comment