No matter how much anyone tries to convince you that common law marriages exist in California do not believe them. There simply is no common law marriage in
California or any marriage-like rights that are recognized under the California
Family Code. This means that there is no
spousal support arising out of a marriage-like relationship, nor are there any
property rights created. So if you want
to break up with the live-in boyfriend or live-in girlfriend and you do not
have any children, they will not have rights under the California Family Code
to assert against you for spousal support or property.
I gave it away with the title, there are exceptions to the
general rule that there are no common law marriages in California. I’m not really sure you can call them
exceptions. More accurately, they are
different theories outside of the normal California Family Law Courts that you
may turn to in seeking a remedy.
First, to dismiss and get out of the way is the Putative
Spouse Doctrine. The Putative Spouse
Doctrine is where one party has a good faith belief that the marriage is valid
or legal. When in truth, this good faith
belief is mistaken because, most commonly, the other party is already married. In these cases that putative spouse will have
similar if not the same rights as a spouse with a completely legal marriage.
Often, the putative spouse doctrine will not apply. So then what are you left with? Rest assured, you may seek what is commonly called a Marvin
Claim. This is an action in Civil Law
Court for breach of an express or implied contract. The Marvin Claim allows nonmartial
cohabitants to seek relief from fellow cohabitants to enforce obligations
arising out of property, support, and other financial claims.
The (Marvin v. Marvin
(1976) 18 Cal.3d 660) case is famous because the Defendant in the case was the
famous actor Lee Marvin. The Plaintiff and Lee Marvin lived together
for 7 years and apparently made an oral agreement. Specifically, “that while ‘the parties lived together they
would combine their efforts and earnings and would share equally any and all
property 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.’” (Marvin at 666). It’s kind of hard to imagine someone would
say, “I agree to render my services a companion, homemaker, housekeeper and
cook in exchange for your companionship.”
It is important to note that a Marvin claim cannot rely solely on sexual
services.
To establish a Marvin Claim you do need at least some
cohabitation and it make sense because how can one party render services if
they are rarely ever there? Really, what
the Marvin Claim is a Contract claim.
For a Contract claim you need some kind of Offer, Acceptance, and some
kind of bargained for exchange or Consideration. That being said, there is also available,
equitable relief. Equitable relief is another way for a court to give a remedy to a party that deserves it because it's fair.
The result of the Marvin Claim is that the person seeking the remedy may be able to be compensated for the services rendered as a result of the breach of contract. In some cases spousal support may be available.
What is interesting as well is the fact that a Marvin Claim
is also available for same-sex partners as there is nothing in California Law
presently to prevent such an action being brought.
Therefore, in all fairness, there are really no exceptions to the rule that there are no common law marriages in California. There are however, some alternative theories in which a competent Family Law Attorney will assert for their clients.
If you have any questions feel free to comment below or contact me at barry@lawofficeofbarrydwitt.com or visit my website at www.lawofficeofbarrydwitt.com
can a common law wife collect a railroad pension if she has lived as husband &wife in California if her common law husband has died?
ReplyDelete