Legal Question in Wills and Trusts in California

Do you think he would voluntarily sign something if you asked him to?

Best,

Daniel Bakondi, Esq. [email protected] 415-450-0424

IMPORTANT NOTICE: No attorney-client nor confidential relationship is created through this communication. Nothing communicated or provided constitutes legal advice nor a legal opinion unless it so specifies and written agreement for attorney services has been entered into. Your issue may be time sensitive and may result in loss of rights if you do not act in time. Thank you.

Because you were not married, this would fall under the Marvin v Marvin case and quasi-community property. Look at the summary I provided below and see if any of the fact might meet your situation (ar can be argued as such). If so, then you will probably want to specifically exclude him.

Marvin v. Marvin was a front-page legal story in the mid-1970s. Its colorful cast of characters included the late Lee Marvin, star of such films as "The Dirty Dozen," and his longtime mistress, ex-dancer Michelle Triola. Marvin and Triola had lived together in his Malibu home from 1964 to 1970. The lawsuit stemmed from the stormy dissolution of their extra-marital relationship.

Marvin (who was married to another woman) had conducted his relationship with Triola in apparent anticipation of a less-than- amicable parting. Not only did he refuse to marry Triola -- who nonetheless called herself "Michelle Marvin" -- but he studiously avoided any paper trail that might expose him to financial consequences if and when the relationship dissolved.

Marvin may have assumed that California's family law would protect him from alimony and other core legal consequences of marriage. He had good reason to think so: California's marriage statutes were widely believed to prevent courts from recognizing a variety of "domestic" rights (specifically, to financial support and property) in the absence of a legislatively sanctioned wedding ceremony.

The actor was in for a shock.

Triola went to court and, with the help of celebrity divorce lawyer Marvin Mitchelson, sought the benefits of a wife, including the right to claim more than $1 million of Lee Marvin's Hollywood earnings.

Triola sued all the way to the California Supreme Court, which ruled in her favor in 1976.

Triola's suit relied -- in part -- on an obscure doctrine of contract law known as "quasi" or "implied" contract. Under this doctrine, courts may infer a legally enforceable agreement from the circumstances of the parties' dealings, even though the parties have not entered any actual written agreement. Triola argued that similar logic required the court to treat her relationship with Marvin as an "implied agreement" granting her many of the same rights given by law to wives.

The California Supreme Court held in Triola's favor after a "searching inquiry into the nature of their relationship." Triola had given up a career as an entertainer and devoted herself full time to Marvin's welfare, said the court. She had acted as his "companion, homemaker, housekeeper and cook." Though they were not formally married, the two had "agreed to hold themselves out to the general public" as husband and wife. Triola took Marvin's last name. In such circumstances, the court ruled, Marvin might be presumed to have implicitly agreed, as a matter of contract, to assume some of the support obligations of a husband.