In cases where judges order support for an unmarried partner, they have found that one partner promised to support the other partner in return for being taken care of while they lived together. In all reported cases so far, support has been provided by a male partner to a female partner. Courts have treated these situations as if the parties had a contract, not like marriage, where the right to support is based on an obligation between the partners. Under the law, the duty to support one another still belongs only to spouses in a legal marriage.

The most famous case of palimony in California history was the case of Marvin v Marvin. In this case Michelle Marvin, alleged that she and actor Lee Marvin entered into an oral agreement which provided 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.”

She also alleged that the parties further agreed that Michelle Marvin would "render her services as a companion, homemaker, housekeeper and cook.” Upon separation she sought a judicial declaration of her contract and property rights, and sought to impose a constructive trust upon one half of the property acquired during the course of the relationship.

The judge in the trial agreed with Lee Marvin’s position that the alleged agreement was unenforceable and ruled in his favor, but the California Supreme Court reversed his decision stating that "a contract between non-marital partners is unenforceable only to the extent that it explicitly rests upon the immoral and illicit consideration of meretricious sexual services."

The Supreme Court’s opinion was: 
“In summary, we base our opinion on the principle that adults who voluntarily live together and engage in sexual relations are nonetheless as competent as any other persons to contract respecting their earnings and property rights . . . . So long as the agreement does not rest upon illicit meretricious consideration, the parties may order their economic affairs as they choose, and no policy precludes the courts from enforcing such contracts.”

Although the plaintiff's complaint alleged only an expressed contract, the Supreme Court went on to address the issue of "the property rights of a non-marital partner in the absence of an express contract." and decided to make new law on non-marital cohabitants. The Court overruled that line of cases, holding that in the absence of an express agreement the plaintiff might be able to establish an implied contract or implied partnership, and might be able to invoke such remedies as constructive trust, resulting trust, and quantum merit.

This was not the first case of palimony but it has such a high profile that most people believe it was. At the end of the day palimony was firmly entrenched in not only law but public opinion as well.

Despite the Marvin ruling there is really no statutory term for palimony and cases requesting palimony are not usually heard in the family court system. Rather they are normally referred to civil court for enforcement of an oral contract. Because there are no written laws on the subject, the decisions made by the courts provide the only guidance as to how and when an unmarried person may be successful in getting support from his or her partner.

There are few set rules governing palimony and the best advice that anyone considering such a case or trying to defend against such action is to find an experienced lawyer to advise you. If you have any questions about palimony in the state of California, please contact our experienced attorneys today for a free consultation.

Please contact us online or call us at 1-800-221-9847.

Related Information
Community Property in California
Domestic Partnerships