MARVIN V. MARVIN
13 Cal. 3d 660, 557 P2d 106 (1976)

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: After hearing arguments, the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) granted defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint seeking declaratory relief and imposition of a constructive trust upon half the property acquired during parties' relationship and denied plaintiff's motions to set aside the judgment and leave to amend complaint.

FACTS: P and D lived together for seven years without marrying All properly acquired was taken in D's name After seven years D forced P to leave and D did support her for about a year and a half but refused any more support P sued to enforce an oral agreement that while the parties lived together they would combine their efforts and earnings and would share equally any and all properly accumulated as a result of their efforts whether individual or combined Furthermore, they agreed to 'hold themselves out to the general public as husband and wife' and that 'plaintiff would further render her services as a companion, homemaker, housekeeper and cook to defendant' P agreed to 'give up her lucrative career as an entertainer [and] singer' in order to 'devote her full time to defendant as a companion, homemaker, housekeeper and cook,' in return D agreed to 'provide for all of P's financial support and needs for the rest of her life ' P asserted two causes of action, declaratory relief to determine her contract and properly rights and for a constructive trust upon one-half of the properly acquired during their time together The trial court entered judgment for D and P appealed

ISSUE: Should courts enforce express contracts between nonmantal partners except to the extent that the contract is explicitly founded on the consideration of meretricious sexual services'? May nonmantal partners lawfully contract concerning the ownership of properly acquired during the relationship1? Are oral agreements between nonmantal partners subject to the statute of frauds'? May a nonmantal partner recover under quantum meruit under an implied contract1?

RULE OF LAW: Courts should enforce express contracts between nonmantal partners except to the extent that the contract is explicitly founded on the consideration of meretncious sexual services. Nonmantal partners may lawfully contract concerning the ownership of properly acquired during the relationship Oral agreements between nonmantal partners are not subject to the statute of frauds A nonmantal partner may recover under quantum meruit under an implied contract.

HOLDINGThe Supreme Court, Tobriner, J., held that provisions of the Family Law Act do not govern the distribution of property acquired during a nonmarital relationship; that court should enforce express contracts between nonmarital partners except to the extent the contract is explicitly founded on the consideration of meretricious sexual services, despite contention that such contracts violate public policy; that in the absence of express contract, the court should inquire into the conduct of the parties to determine whether that conduct demonstrates implied contract, agreement of partnership or joint venture, or some other tacit understanding between the parties, and may also employ the doctrine of quantum meruit or equitable remedies such as constructive or resulting trust, when warranted by the facts of the case; that in the instant case plaintiff's complaint stated a cause of action for breach of an express contract and furnished suitable basis on which trial court could render declaratory relief; and that the complaint also could be amended to state a cause of action founded on theory of implied contract or equitable relief.
Reversed and remanded.

ANALYSIS: After party cohabitants ended relationship, plaintiff averred an oral agreement to combine efforts and earnings and share equally any and all property accumulated as result. The parties held themselves out as husband and wife, with plaintiff giving up her career to render services as companion, homemaker, housekeeper, and cook in exchange for defendant's financial promise to support her for life. The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings to defendant. The court reversed and remanded, holding plaintiff's complaint properly stated a breach of express contract claim, and could be amended to assert an implied contract or equity rights. The court essentially held that the Family Law Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 4000 et seq., did not govern nonmarital distribution of property; that express contracts between nonmarital partners should be enforced except to extent they were explicitly founded on meretricious sexual services; that courts should examine parties' conduct to determine whether an implied contract existed; and that quantum meruit or equitable remedies were available.