Court Cases V. Lee Marvins

Introduction
In June 1964, Lee Marvin who was an actor met with Michelle Marvin who was an entertainer and a singer (though later relinquished this career) with whom he moved in together in an unmarried relationship which lasted for six years. Lee Marvin and Michelle Marvin had initially agreed to live together as non-marital partners so long as they both enjoyed the affection and the mutual companionship offered by the relationship. During the cohabitation period, Mr. Lee Marvin acquired property including motion pictures rights worth more than $ 1 Million from his substantial income. Michelle Marvin on the other end had given up her lucrative career as a singer and entertainer to become a full time homemaker, cook and companion to Mr. Lee

Lee Marvin.
e) Mr. Lee Marvin never agreed to provide economic support to Michelle Marvin for the rest of her life whether the two were still living together or separately.
Testimonies
From the Court findings, it was evident that the defendant Mr. Lee Marvin was not obliged whatsoever to pay the plaintiff, Michelle Marvin, a reasonable sum of money for her maintenance after the two had separated. It was also clear that the plaintiff, Michelle Marvin had suffered no damage whatsoever during the relationship she had with Mr. Lee Marvin and even after the termination of the relationship and therefore the defendant, Mr. Lee Marvin was not monetarily liable to her in any way.
Further analysis also indicated that Michelle Marvin had benefited economically and socially from the cohabitation. This was evident in payment of goods and services by Mr. Marvin that were rendered to Michelle Marvin that amounted to $72,900 and notwithstanding the living expenses of Michelle Lee that were catered for by Mr. Lee Marvin that totaled to $221,400. Michelle Marvin also benefited from gifts bought for her by Mr. Lee Marvin.
Main Points of the closing

The agreement between Mr. Lee Marvin and Michelle Marvin in 1964 to move in together, violated the public policy because it derogated the community property rights of Mrs. Betty Marvin who was the lawful wife of Mr. Lee Marvin at that point in time.
It was after the establishment that Mrs. Betty Marvin was still the lawful wife of Mr. Lee Marvin that Michelle offered to amend her complaint to allege that she and Mr. Lee Marvin had reached the agreement to move in together after Mr. Marvin and Betty were divorced. The trial court however denied the amendment by Michelle Marvin for other reasons other than injuring the community property rights of Betty.
Conclusion
The appellate Court ruled that the mere fact that couples or parties agreed to live together in meretricious relationship did not necessarily make an agreement or disposition of property between them invalid. The Court of appeal also reversed the initial ruling by the trial court to award Michelle Marvin $104,000 for rehabilitation on the basis