A Marvin claim is a type of claim an unmarried member of a couple may have in California against the property of his or her partner. This does not mean that the couple is in a common law marriage – common law marriage is not recognized in California.
Instead, unmarried couples who live together and have a relationship may have community property rights. The partners can ask for both palimony (alimony for unmarried couples) and property rights in civil court, instead of in family court where marriage and divorce issues are handled.
These types of claims are called Marvin claims, based on a case involving the actor Lee Marvin. After they broke up, his long-term girlfriend sued him for financial support, similar to alimony and community property.
The Supreme Court of California awarded the property to his girlfriend. The Supreme Court refused to treat unmarried cohabitants like married people, but the court stated that agreements between unmarried partners should be enforced like any other contract between unmarried people.
Marvin cases can involve both opposite-sex and same-sex partners. In order for a Marvin claim to be successful, the claimant must be able to prove that the parties had either an express (written or oral) or implied contract, or some other basis for the claim.
Even if the agreement was not an express or oral agreement, the partners may be able to receive support or property in some situations. For example, if the parties casually decided that one of them would be the breadwinner and the other would manage the household and they later break up, the partner managing the household may be able to seek compensation from the income earner in the event of a breakup.
There can be several ways to show there was an agreement to create financial reliance between the partners. Generally, the longer the couple has lived together, the stronger the Marvin claim is likely to be.
If there are children involved, that also tends to make a claim stronger. If one partner gave up a career or a job for the benefit of the partnership, that can help to make a claim stronger.
If there are shared accounts or property, this can help show your relationship status. Any similar estate plans, health or dental plans, life insurance policies, or other documentation can strengthen your claim.
A couple which holds itself out to the world as married may have a stronger Marvin claim. The parties may have agreed to treat each other as a spouse. They may have used the same last name, or even filed joint tax returns.
In addition, some courts may want a reason the couple wasn’t married in order to uphold a Marvin claim, since getting married is generally quick and inexpensive. Typically, a successful plaintiff in a Marvin case must be able to show why the couple did not get married, even though they agreed they would have the same legal rights as they would as if they were married.
For example, one partner may be receiving alimony from a former marriage which would terminate if he or she remarried. One of both of the partners may have had a very lengthy, expensive, painful divorce. One of the partners may have a sketchy financial history, and the other may fear that getting married would destroy his or her credit.
There are a number of theories that can be asserted in a Marvin claim. They could include breach of contract, fraud, implied partnership, unjust enrichment, and more. The injured party can ask for lifetime support, or a division of property.
If you have been involved in a romantic, long-term relationship in California, and you two have broken up, you may believe that you have the right to financial support or property based on promises that were made during the relationship. In that case, you should consult with an attorney.
On the other hand, if you were involved in a long-term relationship that has ended and your partner makes a claim for property or financial support based on the Marvin case, you should also speak with an attorney.
An attorney can help you gather evidence that no promises were made during the relationship, and that your partner is not entitled to any support now that the relationship is over.