Cohabitation is a common amongst couples who want to build a life together without getting married. But, because California law does not recognize common law marriages, cohabitation may unexpectedly affect each partner’s property rights. When an unmarried couple establishes a shared household, they often begin sharing finances or purchasing a home together. These seemingly normal relationship milestones may bring unexpected consequences such as complicated ownership disputes, financial support, and other responsibilities in the unfortunate event the relationship ends.
What is “Cohabitation?”
The Supreme Court of California defined cohabitation as two unmarried individuals living together as husband and wife, which involves the mutual assumption of marital obligations, rights, and duties. (Sharon v. Sharon (1889) 79 Cal.633, 670 citing (Cannon v. U.S. (1885) 116 U.S. 55.) However, different areas of law define “cohabitation” differently.
For example, criminal law defines cohabitation as an unrelated couple living together in a substantial relationship (People v. Belton (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 432, 438.) The California Evidence Code defines cohabitation as two people who live or dwell together in the same household. (People v. Siravo (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 555, 563; Evid. Code § 972.) Here, cohabitation may determine the availability of certain evidentiary privileges.
In the context of family law, “cohabitation” triggers various legal presumptions, such as legitimacy. Here, when a child is born to a wife who cohabitates with her lawful husband, the law presumes they are living together as husband and wife. (Madden v. Madden (1958) 160 Cal.App.2d 422, 424.)
Lastly, in property law, “cohabitation” means living together ostensibly as man and wife, in a relationship which resembles marriage, without being legally married. (In re Mills’ Estate (1902) 137 Cal. 298, 301.) Here, cohabitation’s impact on property rights varies depending on whether the parties have entered agreements governing their shared property, individual contributions, and the principles of equity.
Marvin Agreements
Unmarried cohabitants may have property rights based on express or implied contracts and the principles of equity. A common type of agreement between unmarried cohabitants are Marvin Agreements. A Marvin Agreement is an express or implied contract between unmarried partners that establishes financial support and how property will be upon the relationship’s termination. (Marvin v. Marvin (1976) 18 Cal.3d 660, 670 (Marvin).)
In Marvin, the California Supreme Court established two important principles regarding the validity of Marvin Agreements. First, the Marvin opinion makes clear that agreements addressing individual property, earnings, and expenses, between an unmarried couple who live together and share a sexual relationship, are not rendered invalid simply because the parties began their relationship without envisioning its end. (Marvin, 18 Cal.3d at 669-670.) Second, Marvin established that agreements between unmarried partners which exclusively rely on the performance of sexual services as consideration, are invalid as a matter of law. (Marvin, 18 Cal.3d at 669.)
Cohabitation and Property Agreements, Generally
Marvin established the right of unmarried cohabitating couples to contract regarding their property and financial arrangements, subject to prohibitions against contracts which violate public policy or are illegal. (Milian v. De Leon (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 1185, 1194 (Milian).) More specifically, unmarried partners derive property rights from express or implied contracts or the principles of equity. (Velez v. Smith (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1176 (Velez) citing Kroopf v. Guffey (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 1351, 1357-1358.) It follows that, how Court’s enforce agreements between unmarried cohabitating partners depends on whether the agreement is express, implied, or exists through the principles of equity.
Express Agreements
As a rule, when unmarried cohabitating partners have an express agreement, courts should enforce the agreement as written if it is valid. (Velez, 142 Cal.App.4th at 659.) In comparison, an implied in-fact contract is a valid enforceable contract, established through the parties’ conduct, not the parties’ words. (Silva v. Providence Hospital Oakland (1939) 14 Cal.2d 762, 773.) Both an express contract and an implied in-fact contract are based upon the parties express or perceptible intention. (Maglica v. Maglica (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 442, 456, fn. 14 (Maglica).) As such, the main distinction between an express contract and an implied in-fact contract lies in the parties’ manifestation of assent. (Id.)
Implied Agreements
Importantly, cohabitation alone does not establish an implied agreement between unmarried partners to share property. (Maglica, 66 Cal.App.4th at 455.) Instead, the court must find the existence of an implied agreement to share property using various factors, such as: (a) the parties testimony of an agreement’s existence; (b) the parties holding themselves out as a married couple socially; (c) adopting one spouse’s last name and giving your children that same last name; and (d) sharing finances to jointly purchase property. (Alderson v. Alderson (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 450, 461.)
For example, in Whorton v. Dillingham (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 447, the court upheld an unmarried cohabitating couple’s oral agreement as valid. Here, the unmarried couple lived together and formed an oral agreement, which relied on sexual services as consideration. (Id.) Although Marvin, makes clear that such agreements are null and void as a matter of law, here, the court found the sexual services aspect of the agreement could be severed. Specifically, the oral agreement relied on additional consideration of acting as a bodyguard, chauffer, business partner, and secretary. (Id.)
In Whorton, the court established that even oral agreements may be enforceable under Civil Code section § 1599, which states that a contract which has several distinct objects, including at least one lawful object and one unlawful object, the contract may be severed from the unlawful object, and enforceable as to the remaining lawful objects. (Id. at 453.)
In sum, cohabitation alone does not automatically vest either partner with property rights. Instead, cohabitation may influence the validity of an unmarried couple’s agreements governing their property rights and distribution, dependent on the unique circumstances of their relationship.
What is an Example?
“Shawn” and “Julie” are unmarried romantic partners who live together and present themselves to family and friends as husband and wife, despite never marrying. Last year, Shawn and Julie purchased a single-family home in Southern California, as tenants-in-common. Recently, Shawn and Julie went through a contentious break-up resulting in a mutual agreement to sell the Property.
However, after Julie moved out of the Property, Shawn refused to move out, claiming he owns the house outrightly, and owes Julie nothing. Julie has been unable to negotiate with Shawn, who refuses to communicate with Julie entirely. Left with no other option, Julie files for partition of the property, hoping to resolve the dispute, and recover her portion of the equity, so that both Shawn and Julie can move on.
Conclusion
Understanding how Marvin agreements work and how cohabitating affects your property rights as an unmarried partner, are crucial to ensuring your property rights are protected. At Underwood Law, our partition attorneys can help you navigate your partition action efficiently and with care. We are here to help.
