HEWITT V. HEWITT
394 N.E.2d 1204 (1979)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This was a dispute over a property division between an unmarried
couple. Robert (D) appealed an order in which the court entered judgment on Victoria's (P)
claim to recover from D an equal share of the profits and properties accumulated by the
parties during the period P and D lived as husband and wife.
FACTS: 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.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment