Articles Posted in Marvin v Marvin

Often parties find themselves involved in a long term relationships and acquire a lot of real and personal property together.  They cannot file divorce petition with the court and go to Family Court however, they may seek an alternative approach and head to Civil Court to resolve all there property issues.  If the parties head to Civil Court the law that would apply is that of Contracts.  There can be several different methods to prove a case under Marvin v Marvin case law.  There are express contracts and there are implied contracts.

The Family Law Code does not apply therefore the parties must head to court and find other means to go to Court and resolve all property disputes.  One such way is through a legal term call “quantum meruit.” This can be considered an implied contract.  To prove that quantum meruit exists the parties must prove that Action there were reasonable services rendered during the relationship.  Often it is argued there must be sexual relationship involved to recover under quantum meruit but the Courts have stated that it is not necessary as long as the person gave certain services to the other party during the relationship.  Once it is proven that the party gave services to the other party the Court must then look at what services and support the other party returned in favor such as the reasonable value of support received. Courts have gone further to explain that the parties need not have lived together however, in order to prove a case in Court based on a Implied or Express contract there would be no consideration found if the parties did not live together.

The act of Consideration is the key element to proving a Marvin case in the state of California.  Because often there is no consideration and the party seeking monetary compensation for living with the other party will fail in court. A big hang up the party will find in Court is that just because they had meretricious relationship it does not mean that they can get compensation for that alone.  That means that sexual relationships alone cannot be the single factor for going to Court to get a financial reward in a Marvin case.  There has to be some sort of services rendered in the relationship to warrant a financial payment as a result.