Byrne v. Laura

California Court of Appeal · Family Law

Family LawMarvin agreementscohabitation agreementsequitable estoppelstatute of fraudsMarvincohabitantssupport agreement

Facts

Flo and Skip, longtime sweethearts, lived together from 1988 until Skip's death in 1993. Flo presented evidence that Skip repeatedly promised to take care of her for the rest of her life, that they agreed their property would be jointly held and belong to the survivor, and that Skip repeatedly said he would put everything, including the house and investments, in her name or in a living trust. Flo moved into Skip's home, acted as homemaker and companion, contributed earnings to the household, and retired at his insistence. Skip died unexpectedly without changing title documents, leaving a substantial estate under an old will that did not benefit Flo.

Issue

Did the trial court err in summarily adjudicating Flo's non-quantum-meruit claims on the theory that the parties' arrangement was merely an unenforceable oral joint tenancy agreement? More specifically, did the evidence create triable issues as to enforceable cohabitation agreements for support and property, and as to equitable estoppel against a statute-of-frauds defense?

Rule

Under Marvin, express support and property agreements between nonmarital cohabitants are enforceable. Even when a property agreement could implicate a statute of frauds, equitable estoppel may bar that defense if one party seriously changed position in reliance on the oral agreement and would suffer unconscionable injury if the agreement were not enforced; whether estoppel applies is generally a question of fact. Ambiguous oral agreements reasonably susceptible to different interpretations should not be resolved by summary adjudication.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nina Cortez and Owen Drake lived together in Sacramento for six years. Owen repeatedly told Nina, "I'll make sure you're cared for for the rest of your life," and Nina then left her apartment, contributed her wages to household expenses, and stopped working full-time at Owen's request; after Owen died, his estate rejected her creditor's claim for ongoing support.

If the estate moves for summary adjudication arguing the alleged promise is too vague to enforce, how should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority held that express support agreements between nonmarital cohabitants are enforceable under Marvin. Repeated assurances that one partner will take care of the other for life, together with conduct consistent with that promise, create a triable issue of fact. Uncertainty about the exact amount of support does not justify summary adjudication when the agreement is reasonably susceptible of interpretation through extrinsic evidence and the parties' conduct. (Derived from Byrne v. Laura (n.d.).)