Michelle Triola Marvin dies at 75; legal fight with Lee Marvin invented 'palimony'

Michelle Triola Marvin, a former nightclub singer whose claims as the onetime live-in girlfriend of actor Lee Marvin led to a landmark ruling that established the legal concept of palimony, has died. She was 75.

Marvin, who had fought lung cancer for the last 18 months, died Friday at the Malibu home she shared with actor Dick Van Dyke, her companion of three decades, said a family friend, Bob Palmer.

Michelle Marvin, who legally changed her surname to Lee Marvin's even though they never married, made legal history in 1976 when the California Supreme Court ruled that she and other unmarried people could sue for property division when a relationship ended.

That decision paved the way three years later for an often-sensational 11-week trial in which Michelle Marvin was awarded $104,000 for what the judge called "rehabilitative purposes."

Both sides declared victory, but Michelle Marvin perhaps won the best sound bite: "If a man wants to leave his toothbrush at my house, he better bloody well marry me," she said after the 1979 trial.

http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-me-michelle-triola-marvin31-2009oct31,0,2805574.story?track=rss

The original case is also the basis for that kickass Dan Akroyd rant on Saturday Night Live...Back in the day when the show was actually called 'edgy', 'cutting-edge' and 'subversive'

This point was greatly clarified in the sequel to the Marvin case, "Marvin II" (Marvin v. Marvin (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 871 <176 Cal.Rptr. 555>). The Supreme Court's decision in the first Marvin case reversed a judgment on the pleadings and remanded the case for further proceedings. Thereafter, Michelle Marvin's claims were tried in the Superior Court without a jury. The trial court found that the parties never agreed to share their property and that Lee Marvin did not agree to support Michelle. Nevertheless, the trial court awarded Michelle $104,000 for the purpose of allowing her to be rehabilitated or to learn new employable skills.

..........The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the award was improper because "there is nothing in the trial court's findings to suggest that such an award is warranted to protect the expectations of both parties." Id. at 876 (emphasis in original). Importantly, the court noted that while footnote 25 of the Marvin decision spoke of the evolution of additional equitable remedies, a court of equity "may not create totally new substantive rights under the guise of doing equity." Id.

http://www.palimony.com/7.html

It was in THREE different case books.

I believe it was in Family Law, Remedies, and maybe Contracts.

If they had been domiciled in Texas, this would have been a no-brainer. They would have had a common-law marriage AND community property and she would have gotten half the community property.

California has community property (from the Spanish law - women are considered equal) but they don't have common law.