MARVIN V. MARVIN

Marvin v. Marvin

Marvin v. Marvin

Introduction

The famous case of Marvin vs. Marvin, received high publicity in the late 70's. A heterosexual celebrity couple which cohabited for seven years and then broke up had a conflict over the assets gathered during the live-in period. They had made no written agreement for the property but according to the plaintiff, there was an implied agreement between them. The couple spent their money equally for making the assets, and the plaintiff had given up her career to devote herself for the relationship. The whole property was bought in the name of the defendant (Marvin, 1976).

The Supreme Court of California decided that agreement between the couples, who cohabit without getting married to each other, can be a legal binding provided that such agreements were not a result of meretricious intention only. In the discussed case the plaintiff was granted only $104,000 against her claim of 1.6 million dollars. However, this amount was also revoked by an appeal court later, as there was no proof that there was an agreement between the defendant and the plaintiff (Marvin, 1976).

This was an example of a separation of an unmarried couple who willfully decided to cohabit, without planning for the circumstances of a break up or a partner's death. Whenever there are break up between such couples, the consequences are always painful disputes causing expensive and time consuming litigations. The Marvin case was a conflict between two heterosexual partners, similar can be the situation when two homosexual partners go through a break up.

In the prevailing law, un-married couples do not enjoy similar privileges that are available to married couples. The law does not protect the rights of such relationship partners over a property made during the cohabitation, unless there is a legal binding between the partners. Nowadays ...