The trial court granted Lee’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Decision?
Michelle Marvin and actor Lee Marvin began living together, holding themselves out to the general public as man and wife without actually being married. The two orally agreed that while they lived together, they would share equally any and all property and earnings accumulated as a result of their individual and combined efforts. In addition, Michelle promised to render her services as “companion, homemaker, housekeeper and cook” to Lee. Shortly thereafter, she gave up her lucrative career as an entertainer in order to devote her full time to being Lee’s companion, homemaker, housekeeper, and cook. In return, he agreed to provide for all of her financial support and needs for the rest of her life. After living together for six years, Lee compelled Michelle to leave his household but continued to provide for her support. One year later, however, he refused to provide further support. Michelle sued to recover support payments and half of their accumulated property. Lee contends that their agreement is so closely related to the supposed “immoral” character of their relationship that its enforcement would violate public policy. The trial court granted Lee’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Decision?
The relationship between Individual L and Individual M is not based on any illegal grounds and does not violate any public policy.
The judgment is going to be in favor of Individual M and Individual L is going to be held liable to pay the required amount and property to Individual M.
The court's decision going to be in favor of Individual M. Individual L's argument, which states that the relationship between Individual L and Individual M was against the policies of general public, is not going to be considered valid since there is no illegality in the relationship.