Victoria (P) filed a complaint against Robert (D) for divorce. Upon a hearing, it was determined that no marriage had ever taken place and that a common law marriage did not exist between the couple. P sought support payments for three minor children and a property division. The court sought a more definite statement regarding the property division. P filed an amended complaint alleging a promise by D to share with her, that conduct gave rise to an implied contract, and that P detrimentally and reasonably relied on those promises. It was determined that P and D met in college and that P became pregnant and D told P that they were husband and wife and that they should live together as no marriage ceremony was needed. The parties thereafter held themselves out as married to the community, and relatives. P also alleged that because of this relationship she helped D to get his professional relationship established and that she was entitled to share in those rewards of his $80,000 per year salary and large amounts of property they accumulated in their relationship. The trial court dismissed that complaint. The appeals court reversed on grounds that P's conduct had not so affronted public policy as to be denied any and all relief. The appellate court adopted the reasoning of the California Supreme Court in the widely publicized case of Marvin v. Marvin.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.