200 years ago in England just to show there's nothing new Under the Sun. It was all common law marriage. Actually, there were of course Church weddings. But they were very few. Most everyone who lived together was considered married under the English common law and there was absolutely no requirement for licensing. Let me tell you how a common law marriage became rather uncommon It seemed that Fleet Street, which is if you've been to London is a street of Journalism and the place of houses all the newspapers. But in those days to years ago, it was sort of in a shady part of town and they used to have these marriage license vendor is hiding behind lamp post. So true story young inebriated couples would come by they would jump out these license marriage Hawkers with little tiny secret licenses and sell them to the unsuspecting inebriated couples for a ha'penny. They wake up the next morning and lo and behold they found the remarried. So in order to stop that unseemly practice Lord Hardwick went to Parliament and had the first marriage license acpass henceforth requiring everyone to be licensed. Like that's that's how common law marriage became uncommon and sure enough it spread to the from the mother country to the fledgling America and there we had of course some of the frontier as a frontier expanded from the East to the West there was recognition of, long some of the states but not very many of them. However, you see common law is a little different than just living together in this sense. in common law marriage States the people intend to be married they intend to hold themselves out as being married. As a matter of fact, one of the requirements is you do hold yourself how to be married that's really different from the modern phenomenon of living together today in the sense, of course some people to hold themselves out as being married, but people today by a large intend not to be married. They intend merely to live together and why and why should they be protected by the law? Well, there are many reasons people live together and don't want to be married. One of them is a startling statistic. Over 50% of marriages in this country end up in divorce first-time marriages. It's much greater than that really because you see in the Rocky Mountain States. The rate is something like sixty to seventy percent of failure in first-time marriages and clearly 50% throughout the rest of the United States and inching higher and higher every year proof positive that marriage is a failure will not necessarily because after all it depends on who you're talking to and what kind of life people eating but some people feel rightly or wrongly that they try harder if they do not have the license it binds them some people place a free premium on their individuality. Some people of course our misguided and some people do not intend to share their property or have marital rights. Now, let's get rid of some of the misconceptions about the Marvin case and its progeny the many other cases throughout the United States and incidentally 25 states have accepted. Let's call the Marvin Theory and their High courts or courts of appeal or their Supreme Court have enacted Marvin type of laws and have Marvin type decisions 25 states in the last few years and I predict that within five years. There's no question about it. Every state will recognize the rights of unmarried now for those who do not want to participate. For those who do not want to share in the goods that are acquired during a relationship living relationship. There's no problem. You're not going to see those people in your law office if they truly understand and they really don't want to share their property or have any rights that come out of the relationship. Why should they go to court you might say what a gold digger or take an exception to the rule those who truly contract not too sure are not going to go to court. You see there's the rub the Shakespeare set. It isn't like you go out and buy an IBM typewriter or three bags of cement for some certain in the marketplace living together is a relationship. very akin to being married as a matter of fact look it up in the dictionary sometime. You're going to find out you a surprise that one of the definitions of marriage is he unionization of two people. He doesn't talk about requiring a license. And of course the difference is that most people who live together presumably love one another they care about each other and I'm not talking about people who spend the night together. I'm not talking about a weekend. I'm not talking about a sexual relationship per say I'm talking about people who have a family life who live together. Gertrude Stein said what a rose is a rose is a rose, of course living together is no different whether you have a marriage license or whether you don't as an act of living together, there are duties and responsibilities within every relationship of some kind there is some rules of the game so to speak and I'll tell you that many people who are married you ask them where their marriage licenses. I don't think they remember what drawer they put it into. I don't think I know where mine is. My wife happens to the company leave here at the Minneapolis. I should admit that. I mean about my marriage license not knowing where it is. She's sitting out in the audience on reducer later, but let me say this to you. You see the difference is I said. It isn't like buying something in the Open Marketplace. It is a relationship where people for some. Of time are sharing their lives their souls their Spirits their bodies their room their board. And all the intangible and tangible things that people do together. Why not sure property. Why not share the rights? They come out of that relationship. Why do they need to have a license? To make it legal so to speak. Well my study if it tells me that it is a religious concept that is really come down through the centuries. And of course, we all know that from the time we're small whether we'd be mad or woman were tossed at the greatest thing that can happen to someone is to grow up and get married and have a good life and raise children and have a family of some kind. Lori talking about whether or not not having a license should deprive someone of the right to walk in order to go into the front door of a courthouse and we'll search certain rights. The Marvin concept is really quite simple. Here's what that decision held. Where previously there was no decision like it in the history of this country or even the Western civilized World other than the concept of course of common law marriage where you really intend to be married but through some lack of getting a license. You're not married then we simply said this I'm talking about the Supreme Court Marvin case the one in 1976 in December. I'm not talking about the famous trial last year. I'll talk about that in a moment. That was a trial on the merits of the rights of Michelle Marvin against leemar, but the Marvin decision the one by the Supreme Court was realize after an eight-year struggle. I started that case in 1970 and finally I will actually six and a half years later the decision came down and that case simply says this. Two people would have a contract if contract with one another. Can enforce that contract can go into a court of law and have that contract on her whether it be in writing whether it be oral or whether what we call analog V implied-in-fact. I'll explain that in a moment and the second aspect of the Marvin cases this to people who live together but cannot spell out a contract right with regard to property have a right to come to the front door for courthouse and have equity which means in the law of fairness. They have the right to be treated fairly with regard to the goods that are required to the property this acquired during the relationship with regard for half the need for some temporary support under certain circumstances and other Equitable relief. Is that an estimate anyone really? Think about it for a moment? Is there anyone really in this Auditorium were in this Library who would say to me that after let's say and I'll give you an extreme cases because other than those are the ones that are most difficult to argue with would you say after a 20-year relationship? He woman in the matter together for twenty years. She they start out with a mom-and-pop grocery. He become an alcoholic. I'll make it really tough in the mental picking them for a moment. No reverse it. He becomes an alcoholic and a real womanizer. He doesn't attend to the store at all. He's out with a different woman every night. She works very hard very diligently bring an acuman great accountant and she builds the mom-and-pop grocery in to Safeway or therapy or some huge chain 20 years ago by it's on the New York Stock Exchange. It's all in his name because after all they weren't married except it's all due to her Brilliance most of it, but she did all the work and she developed the concepts concept. And now that stock is worth 55 million dollars. suddenly 20 years later and incidentally beside running the family business and developing this chain of groceries. She has kept a very nice home for this van all is welcome them back after his nightly forays into the world of sin and gave him great companionship and four children, all of them honor students at the University of Minnesota. 20 years later he decides to trade her in for a younger version. Says I want to leave the home tonight. Get the hell out of here. I never want to see you again. I'm sorry you get none of the grocery store get none of this stuff. You get nothing. I will not have him pay your rent. Well my friends I must tell you that before the Marvin case came along. There was no relief for this late. Now very strained circumstances to be sure and courts would try to get around a very unfortunate situation like that. But that lady could not go through the front door report house and could have been go back to the front door of what was formerly or home because a man was entitled to keep all of it why a woman was a sinner know Marvin cases work both ways and then take heart does in a moment. I'll tell you about a case in California where a man got a half a million dollars just for taking care of the house and the children while the woman ran the two restaurant very successfully, but they had an implied contract but the point was that there was a Sim concept associated with living together religious concept of Essure but it was immoral and it was always a Scarlet woman. Now if you can believe it if you can believe it very recently. 8 is he a senator? I think he is. His name is Senator Jack Davis. I haven't met the gentleman. He is a chauvinist. Because he is inactive through the Minnesota Legislature enacted reads like this. Beer enacted by the legislature of the state of Minnesota and I read from the ACT Section 1 is sexual relations between the parties are contemplated even thought about the imagine that a contract between a man and a woman who are living together in this state out of wedlock. Or who are about to commence living together in this state out of wedlock is enforceable as to his terms concerning the property and financial relations of the party only if one the contract is written and signed by the parties and two enforcement is sought after termination of the relationship and there's one more section section 2 unless the individuals have executed a contract complying with the provisions. I'm section one. That's the one I just read you the courts of this state or without jurisdiction to hear and she'll dismiss as contrary to public policy and he claimed by an individual to the earnings of property of another individual if the claim is based on the fact that the individuals live together in contemplation of sexual relations an out-of-wedlock within or without the state end of act One giant step backward for women and one small tiny little step forward for chauvinism. And then no that's quite a sound sounds like a wounded Eagle. Well, I just feel my water. Well, that's alright I can go on. Maybe they're trying to tell me I'm all wet. In any event, let me say this to you see in the Marvin case in California. What does Supreme Court analyze and I'm going to tell you in a moment why that act will be declared unconstitutional by the Minnesota Supreme Court? It's not very difficult because the Minnesota Supreme Court has a case called Carlson vs. Wholesome2go Swedish names and we'll talk about that in a moment in California in California in the Marvin case. The court said look are we going to punish people because they have sex. Are we going to take women out of the closet? So to speak and not make them sinful people. Are we going to wait their sinfulness with a man sinfulness? We're going to treat them equally or we going to ignore the fact that most people who live together obviously have sexual relations. Are we going to penalize him for having sex and the answer of course was a resounding in a ringing? No as it should be What the court simply said is this if a couple has a contract for prostitution, of course, we're not going to enforce that why because prostitution is illegal act in most every state. So if you contract with someone just to have a prostitution relationship sex for pay the courts aren't going in for SAT, but the Marvin K said if there is any other relationship between the parties and they agree that they're going to share property or have a financial Arrangement or in exchange for the woman's companionship and I'm not talking about sex but the companionship of a mate which is a vital thing in most people's lives. Will there be male or female if it's companionship and homemaking and there are other considerations any other consideration but a sexual one that contracts to be in the forest now why very good reason why? The California Supreme Court said about Marvin Thai people. It says we don't propose to treat these people specially we just proposed to treat them like we treat everyone else. Equally, you see if two neighbors have a contract on oral agreement in Minnesota, New Jersey, California, New Mexico. And if it doesn't violate the statute of frauds or the statute of limitations, which are technical reasons in the law, but if you have an oral agreement with your neighbor or TruGreen Grocers have an agreement to have a grocery and didn't put it in writing and work at it and fill up on market and they have a falling-out can they go to court and have their partnership dissolved and have the assets divided? Of course, they can it's only fare. Well, why would you discriminate against two people who live together? And deny them the same kind of recovery. It would be a denial of equal protection of the law. So when the Marvin Court in California says, we don't want to treat especially we just want to treat him like we treat everyone else. We just talking about treating people one in the same and not singling them out and not punishing them for their sex or their sins because we have no right to do that in the law. We're not here to moralize. We're here to enforce legal rights. So that's the reason why the Minnesota law and I'll Define a little more and expand on it will not hold up. The second reason is that if two people have a contract by list called implicate we call an implied contract. In fact, what is that? Let me explain it to you two people hold property in joint tenancy who people have a joint bank account. They never really had a formal discussion about it. They simply those away things worked out. They started working together pulling their money going down putting it in the bank put their names on deed. She told the soil he paid for a she grew up Alfalfa on it. Whatever. They work together. But they didn't Define it by way of writing it out or even saying I'll do this. If you do that, they simply did it by their conduct. They have a contract to you walk out in the morning and there is your dirty car sitting there and someone has a hose and a pail of water and a chef and smiles at you and point to your car holds the hose up like it should I go ahead and wash it and you go you nod your head and smile and you sit there and wash and wash your car and they do a splendid job and you kind of applaud as a wash it and it gets clean and you're smiling and you're happy and you say wonderful and they finish it. There's an implied contract. In fact that man wash that car or that young fellow or lady with an expectation to be paid for services and you let him wash expecting to pay him and the clean car back and return would you deny to people who have an implied contract to walk through the front door of the courthouse and 4 Center Green simply because they didn't put it in writing simply because they didn't orally an ounce of terms. It would be unconscionable and you wouldn't do that now consequently when I gave you the example of the lady with the grocery stores, even if they didn't start a contract once you say that at the moment that he let her go after 20 years and said get out of my house and I won't support you when she was in great need of some support couldn't even eat the groceries from all these markets and couldn't pay her rent and Shouldn't she be able to come and do a court of law and have some kind of temporary support if not permanent support if she didn't get the property divided should she be able to get an injunction against this man for perhaps a beating her or cutting off all of her credit? He be able to hire a lawyer a champion to fight our battles. Of course. The answer is yes because his fear is what we call Equitable. Every case turns on its own facts and while one can dredge up too much sympathy for a couple that's been together for weeks are young people body couple where the lady is quite capable of getting the job. Maybe had a wonderful job till this young Swain Swift her off her feet and said, let's live together and then they broke up and you're a little outrage at your courts are being clogged up by this young couple asking for palimony / property rights. I don't have that much sympathy for a marriage has only gone on for weeks. Usually there's not much property to divide and emerges only gone for weeks went on for 4 weeks and the ports consequently give very little in that kind of relationship. In other words. We can't generalize the important thing is that the Marvin case in cases like that allow. people in those kind of relationships To go to court and to be treated fairly and to have their contracts honored if indeed they do have those contracts now, let's bring it a little closer to home right after the Martin case Carlson vs. Olson came to the attention of the Minnesota Minnesota Supreme Court decision strikingly similar to the Marvin case the court enforced an oral agreement between Carlson and Olsen and there was even an implied agreement there. Now the Supreme Court in Minnesota is the highest court in the state. No. Hello works the legislature to be sure has a right to enact laws. But what happens to laws that are enacted that violate the constitutional? Right of one of its citizens either the Federal Constitution or the state constitution Most states have a state constitution to protect you the same way that federal law protects. You are almost identical. There's a right to be equally treated under the water equal protection of the law due process of the law. Here's what's going to happen you see Davis Senator Jack Davis has attempted 2 make the bean of these relationships to emphasize the sexual aspect. He's attempted to punish the people for having sex. He says if you're contemplating having sex and you live together, you got to get it in writing. Having an oral agreement just simply won't do so what Davis says is this forget about the green grocer down the street forget about the two people who have the market together forget about this lady that's been there 20 years to build up the whole Market to begin with the makes the stock worth 50 million dollars. She has no rights unless you put it in writing. Therefore she's out of court. He attempts to discriminate against the couple because they do have sex and he says that if you have contemplated having the sex you can enforce an oral agreement. So he doesn't treat those two people the way the two people down the street or treated the way the California the New York. The New Jersey courts are going to treat them. I'll talk about them in a moment. They can enforce her or agreements like any other citizen there for when it comes back before the Minnesota Supreme Court. The Minnesota Supreme Court. I predict is going to say I'm sorry. Mr. Davis. I'm sorry about that law that you passed a bill. I'm sorry about it, but Let's see if this will give you the number of this because you might want to know something about it. Let's see well in that pussy and now the waters run all over here. I can hardly read it, I'll just have to let c554e chapter number 5 5 3 and number 1295 but in any of them. Discount the Minnesota Supreme Court's going to say it's unconstitutional. It didn't I say equal protection of the law to those class of citizens it disenfranchises and literally and discriminates against them. So I predict its device and any other law that is past like that that attempts to do the same thing now, Let's talk a little more about this concept because he answers aren't easy. Just a very brief history of why did I take this case a lot of reasons, but I've been a divorce lawyer for 23 years. And I always felt there was a gap in our law that really did discriminate against women because was always a women who were really put out on the street and he's relationship and have no remedies and when Michelle came to see me back in 1970 and said through steer Staind eyes. I've been living with him for seven years in the promise me this and I promised him that and he agreed to pay me $1,000 a month for 5 years and he paid me for a year-and-a-half and then he got married after you say never marry again for us as his prerogative and his wife found out about it and Oregon to stop paying why don't I don't think any wife would like to have her husband paying a former living girlfriend any amount of money without raising the protest in any of them, but she'll want to know if she have any rights. wrote a letter to Lee's lawyers at that time and said Please. $1,000 a month like he promised and I didn't want to go to Port over really but they wrote back a letter and told me to get lost and I decided to come out of hiding because I felt this was wrong. I felt the area and the law was wrong cuz I'm very people ought to have a sale. Right so I am very lonely road of the marketing case. Now. I knew I'd be thrown out of court all the way down the line till I got to the high court everyone. I knew said you never change the law. You haven't got a chance. You just not going to do it. I don't think there was one person. I knew that was on my side. However, I really believe really believe that the law was due for a change statistics film either would been a 15% increase in people living together. And I'm sure they had a recognize those people's right to go into port and I believed I would change the law but I knew that along the way I would be pilloried and do you know? Call The Sinner and advocate of The Sinner is all the names that go along despite the fact that I've only been married once this is my 20th year of marriage. I never had a divorce. It's too expensive in California only, Texas. I took this case and there was some tough times along the way I only tell you this to give you a little hope those of you who might be lost inside or don't get this. I remember one day arguing in the Martin case. And this was in the lower court just before they threw us out on mercifully and I knew I had to start my journey through the appellate courts, as I was arguing the judge got up and walked off the bench. I looked up and he just disappeared. I never been treated like that and you know later on so, you know, I heard something about well, there's you have no lawyer is any of them as I walked out in the hallway in the reporters gathered around me Ivory bravely through almost here said I couldn't be happier. I have the perfect appeal. I was lying. I was very unhappy no one likes to lose. No lawyer ever likes to lose it case any place along the way believe me, but sometimes it's a blessing in disguise because I didn't have the perfect appeal and finally the California Supreme Court took this case and made new law on the subject. Now. What happened last year? Well, here's what happened. A lot of people thought the law was made last year really wasn't. We just finally got the port on the merits of that case. Finally after 70 years 9 years almost to actually try the case on the merits that you see the first time around. We have no law upon which to hang her help. We had no hooks up there this time. We went back in we created law so we could try it under a law that we had created in the case and they're all kinds of possible remedy now judge Marshall a very fine judge after three or four months of testimony. Rules that we didn't prove a contract, but you did a very interesting thing. You said. I just don't think there's a contract in this particular case. It doesn't mean there won't be one another cases. There are many kinds of Marvin cases that are better than the Marvin Gaye's on the merits and on the fact that judge Marshall took a very obscure footnote under the decision. Five when the Marvin opinion was written after 43 Pages there was a bunch of flipnotes and one of them said the courts mean the Lord chords are free to evolve whatever Equitable remedies. They deem appropriate under the circumstances and other words. Here is a Supreme Court of California inviting the lower courts to make their new laws under the decision. If they can't find anything else to sort of fit that Hannah on any other it looked so they couldn't find a contract but judge Marshall said well, they were together. She was a homemaker was a companion. She had a career it wasn't a very good one, but she gave it up and we think he ought to help rehabilitate her career and gave the first palimony award in history. Really a form of Alamo is a hundred and $4,000 for the store to get restart on her life. Well, the Supreme Court has been given alimony alimony award but here it shows a pervasive power the Marvin decision. We lost on all the contract Clauses but in neuremedy was created a remedy of fairness at judge Marshall fell just the circumstances of that pigs. Now who won the case who lost it well new law was made that's what's important and although Lee Marvin claims. He won the case. He's a peel the award of $104,000. I never heard of anyone who want a case of helicase so that case is up before the courts again on a field who knows it may go another 567 years, but it's a lot of fun anyway, No, what other states well, I talked about 25 States beside Carlsen vs. Also which is still in the books and I must commend Minnesota her being the first state to follow the more indecision. The New York Court of Appeals are highest court in about 2 months ago in a case call Maroney versus Maroney enacted a Marvin decision. But while a step forward it said we're going to allow people to enforce oral agreements. It said you cannot enforce an implied agreement. You can't Force Ones by conduct will surely was going to happen. There is the same thing. I predict what's going to happen to Senator Davis has Bill you can't limit rights that are available to everyone else under the law to your neighbors who don't live together and don't have sex. So I think there's going to be a change in that law and expansion of it. Let me just say this to you. Because it is a subject to talk about all day long. We really could it's a fascinating subject as men versus women or not ready for this has been an important thing. Really I think about them. It makes people think about their relationships. It makes you think about getting into it. You should think it out. It isn't a game you're playing your game with someone's wife. Think about what you want out of the relationship Define what your goals are See what you want to happen and spell it out and say it loud and clear should you have a contract written contract like a prenuptial agreement? I called him not enough to lagrimas. I have to tell you what the state of the laws it is. You're almost to protect yourself probably should have a written agreement. If you really want to play it safe, but I find it very difficult. You know, you're talking about romance, you're talking about the people who love each other so hard sometimes to pull out that piece of paper and say sign on the dotted line after all unlike buying that bag of cement or that typewriter living together as a growing continue a relationship that may change from month to month and year by year. Maybe the next year. You'll find yourself taking care of a sick person nursing him back to health giving him all the love and attention the world and you signed off saying I'll never share anything with them. well There's a lot to think about I'm going to answer any questions you might have not because I looked at my watch is really easy to talk for 40 minutes. I just want to say this to you before I do. The honor is mine. I thank you for inviting me here. It's really a privilege to contribute something to the law beside just Sensational cases and ones with big money. It's important because it affects everyone and I thank you for inviting me. That's a good question because when I was already in the Marvin case before the 7 Supreme Court justices in California Justice mosque asked me that very question do I go to apply the answer is yes, we're talking about people who live together a gay person has a life with another person. They have a partnership. I have a case like this in New York. Now involving gay couple this man was is going to have to be one of the finest playwrights and his partner says that he helped write the play and contributed to his life and they were together five years. Well, it's like any other Partnership if they had an agreement to share certain property if they work together, then we don't care what their sexual relationship was. Is it not fear doing some Fairway beef? Early when you end the relationship and Sharon the property in some aspects and let me say one of the thing about that, you know, normally this does not Encompass with someone brought into a relationship just like when you come and do a marriage they have separate property it remains separate unless you change it if you then commingle it or you say look on the shirt with you that may change it but it doesn't get as what you had before it hits the proper you accumulate during a relationship that you both work for. That is an excellent question in a difficult one cuz it really depends on all the circumstances it would depend. For example, we have two different problems in all these relationships like we do a marriage when is division of property in the other is a necessity for support their separate problems. For example, in any case in any state someone gets a divorce and there's four million dollars to divide and you get as a woman 2 million dollars in the same cash. I'll cash them except for the taxes. Perhaps you need alimony, of course not if you have 2 million dollars in the back, you can have all the tax problems in the world getting the income off of that property. So there's no need for support of Court isn't going to give it but lots of people don't have property when their relationships terminate and then a woman who's been there 20 years kept a home raise the children and is Available for a good Market job in the marketplace. She's entitled to support from let's say a high-earning husband. So you got to look at the lifestyle. They've had his ability to pay and her name is taken on a combination of those factors. It isn't something automatic incidentally to show you how things are equalizing and I find this to you know, women do not want to be superior. They want to be treated equally and really none misconceive. I'm sorry to say that they could mist and see what women really actor in these equality situation New York, for example, beside changing their living together laws. They just change your divorce laws of one of the last States property followed whose name it was in the title and the manual controls the property during marriage. So everything's in his name the wife got a lifetime alimony whether she needed or not. Well, that's silly New York just changed its laws of July one they have now. Portable distribution of property based on furnace not necessarily half maybe half maybe less, maybe more and no longer is that this automatic lifetime alimony alimony will be based on the need and rehabilitative purposes sort of like the Marvin Award of $104,000. So no more automatic ping but a fair distribution of property. I'll tell you how I feel I feel about it like Most states do if you bring it to the attention of the port. They're going to cut it off. We had as they should do really if you're living with another man. You see his mother to bring it just in case in California came up that way call the lead case the lady live with Mr. Lead and the husband was tired of paying out all this alimony if this mr. Leave was very Able Body and I missed her and he took his wife back to Fort his former wife and he said look they live together. She lives with Mr. Lead and you know that he's very Able Body and their defense was mr. Leaves said the living lover said no. He said, I'm not really supporting her weary supporting ourselves. We're enjoying each other's company and it okay. Well the court said we'll look the Marvin decision said It's a valuable service to have companionship and homemaking. That's a compensable service and is recognizing a woman's contribution to relationship. Therefore. Why should the former husband subsidized it? Why should he be subsidizing that man's getting this valuable service for nothing and having to pay her cut down his alimony payments to $10 a month. And now I'm Mister leave is paying for some of the bill at least.