| 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. |