Articles

Passing of Palimony Promoter Recalls Minnesota Laws

"One was never married, and that's his hell;
another is, and that's his plague."
Robert Burten, The Anatomy of Melancholy (1651)

By Marshall H. Tanick

The death a few months ago of Michelle Triola Marvin, who passed away at her home in California last fall, attracted little attention around here.

But her name is well-known in the law, even in Minnesota. She played the leading role in the landmark litigation, known as Marvin v. Marvin three decades ago, which promoted the rights of unmarried partners to obtain compensation when their relationships end.

The case became a joke for late night comics and others but it was no laughing matter. By the time the litigation ended, its impact permeated the law in many states, including jurisprudence and statutes in Minnesota.

Marvin Matter

The Marvin matter began when the woman, known then as Michelle Triola, an erstwhile singer, met actor Lee Marvin in 1964, while working as an extra in the movie "Ship of Fools." They lived together for six years, during which time Lee won an Academy Award for his portrayal of a drunken cowhand in "Cat Ballou" opposite Jane Fonda, herself a two-time Oscar winner in other movies.

Michelle took the actor's name, but they were never married. The relationship ended in 1970, and Michelle then began working as a secretary at a Los Angeles talent agency. The actor, Marvin, paid his ex-cohabitant Michelle, support checks for nearly a decade after the relationship ended but he stopped doing so in 1979, about the time she began living with another big-name actor, Dick Van Dyke, a meretricious relationship that lasted until Michelle's recent death.

When her support checks from Lee stopped coming, Michelle sued him for $3.6 million, claiming that he had promised her lifetime support. Her lawyer, the flamboyant Marvin Mitchelson, called the request "palimony," equating it to alimony for divorcing spouses, and the name stuck.

The matter was unique in some respects to California, one of a handful of states with community property laws. The trial court rejected her claim under the state's community property laws, which entitle spouses to half the earnings of their spouses during their marriage, but awarded Michelle "rehabilitation" of $104,000, a form of non-marital support.

The decision was later overturned on appeal, on grounds that Lee had "no obligation to provide [Michelle] with a reasonable sum for her support and maintenance" and there was no "unjust enrichment" on his part. Marvin v. Marvin 122 Cal. App. 3d 871, 176 Cal Rptr. 555 (1981). But, by that time, the case and its concept had permeated the consciousness of the country, from water-coolers to late-night comedians to legislators and jurists.

Case Consideration

Although no money changed hands in the Marvin case, the litigation changed the law here and elsewhere.

It spurred a reported increase in antenuptial and post-nuptial agreements. See "Appellate actions address antenuptial agreement attacks" in the August 7, 2006, edition of Minnesota Lawyer. It also triggered a number of similar "palimony" lawsuits, known as mini-Marvin cases, around the country, including Minnesota.

More than two decades ago, in the wake of the Marvin litigation, the Supreme Court in In re Estate of Eriksen, 337 N.W.2d 671 (Minn. 1983) allowed cohabitating parties to sue each other regarding earnings or property based on equitable theories such as constructive trust or unjust enrichment, provided a sexual relationship was not the "sole consideration" for the arrangement.

Statutory Solutions

The conundrums raised in Marvin, Eriksen and progeny promoted statutory solutions. Minnesota enacted a pair of statutes codifying the rights of "living together" parties.

Referred to as "anti palimony" laws, the measures link Marvin claims to contract law. Under Minn. Stat. § 513.076, courts in Minnesota lack jurisdiction and "shall dismiss" any such claim, unless the parties have executed a contract." The prohibited claims consist of those seeking "earnings or property of another individual ... based on the fact that the individuals lived together in contemplation of sexual relations" while not married. It does not, by its terms, extend to other claims.

To assert a statutory claim, Minn. Stat. § 573.075 requires a written agreement signed by the parties and enforcement must be sought "after termination of the relationship."

While the statutes do not resolve all Marvin matters or their many variations, they do make parties and lawyers more careful in counseling the clients about the impact of co-habitation.

Cases decided after the statutes were enacted show that they are hardly preclusive. Over a decade ago, In re Estate of Palmer, 588 N.W.2d 493 (Minn. 1999), the Supreme Court reverted to pre-statutory reasoning in allowing a cohabitant's claim to proceed. It pointed out that a Marvin-type claim can exist in two circumstances without contractual compliance: a) if the agreement between the parties is "independent... of sexual relations," or b) if claimants are "seeking to protect [their] own property and... [not] any rights in the property of a cohabitant.

These themes were reiterated in a trio of more recent unpublished appellate court decisions. In Tina Thuy Le v. Luan Minh Tong, 2008 WL 763175, (Minn. App. 2008), the court held that the statutes do not bar a fraud claim seeking restoration of property. In Anderson v. DeWitt, 2008 WL 2020416 (Minn. App. 2008) (unpublished), the absence of a written agreement did not preclude recovery of the claimant's own contribution to the construction of a log cabin, which was not based only on a cohabitating relationship. Similarly, a claim by a cohabitant for labor for remodeling a house also allowed in "Fryer v. Lemcke, 2009 WL 749584 (Minn. App. 2009) (unpublished). But see Olson v. Bird, 2006 WL 264684 (Minn. App. 2006) (unpublished) (woman cohabitant not entitled to assets of decedent in absence of contract or sharing or unjust enrichment by heirs.)

The death of Michelle Marvin, who took the actor's name during their relationship, is the denouement of key players in the litigation drama. The actor died in 1987 and Mitchelson, the flamboyant lawyer who coined the "palimony" phrase, passed away in 2004.

But the concept of "palimony" that they contributed to lives on around the country. The case law and statutes in Minnesota recognize the legacy of their landmark litigation.