Court: |
Supreme Court of California |
|
Facts: |
Lee Marvin cohabitated with the plaintiff, and she gave up her show-biz
career. They lived in style, then the relationship ended, and she wanted
half of the property acquired in joint during the relationship. |
|
Posture: |
Appealed from a trial court finding for the defendant. |
|
Issue: |
What rights, if any, does cohabitation create? |
|
Holding: |
The family law act doesn't cover unmarried couples. Courts should enforce
express contracts, when not meretricious. If there's no express contract, courts
should consider implied contracts. |
|
Rule: |
|
|
Reasoning: |
Sort of wishy-washy, actually. They seem to be making things up. |
|
Dicta: |
Dissent: The court should have stopped with the narrow issue of the
case, and not tried to give general guidance. |