Some years ago, the California Supreme Court ruled that, except under unusual circumstances, judges should not exclude the press and public from civil trials. One might wonder, initially, not only why a judge would want to close a civil trial, but why anyone would want to attend one in the first place — but of course, California is the land of Hollywood. And movie stars. And movie stars who get divorced. And sometimes, movies stars who have never even been married.
How could we have lived, after all, had we not had the Johnny Depp-Amber Heard spectacle played out before us?
Well, anyway, that case involving whether civil trials could be closed involved Clint Eastwood and his former girlfriend, the late Sondra Locke fighting over property even though they were never married. But although they set their own precedent, the precedent that led to their lawsuit was set a generation earlier thanks to another case involving a different tough-guy actor.
Lee Marvin, before his death in 1987, was one of Hollywood’s most bankable stars. During the 1950s and 60s he appeared in several dozen movies and television shows, reaching the pinnacle of his career with an Oscar as Best Actor in 1965 for “Cat Ballou” and in one of the biggest hits of the decade, “The Dirty Dozen,” in 1967
Beginning in 1964 — right through the heart of this era — Marvin also had a six-year relationship with a young singer named Michelle Triola whom he met while they worked on a movie together. Triola soon moved in with Marvin, later claiming that they agreed that, while they lived together, she would share his earnings and they would hold themselves out as husband and wife.
During those six years, Lee earned more than $3.5 million dollars. Michelle even had her name legally changed to “Michelle Marvin,” although they in fact never married. In 1970, however, Lee asked Michelle to move out. Shortly afterward, he married another woman. He also paid Michelle a monthly stipend, but ceased doing so after one year.
So Michelle went to court to get what she believed was her due. She hired flamboyant “divorce lawyer to the stars” Marvin Mitchelson. Her lawsuit claimed that she had given up her singing career to act as “cook, companion, and confidante,” while his career soared. She sought essentially the same compensation she would have received had they been married — one half the money he earned during their six years together. Mitchelson even came up with a name for this concept: “palimony,” i.e., “pal+alimony.”
Both the trial judge and the first appellate court to look at the case threw out her suit. They reasoned that, because California had abolished common law marriage in 1895, there was no legal basis for such a suit. An agreement to live together without marriage but to expect the same legal benefits, said those courts, was little more than an agreement to exchange sex for property. (The delightful term for such an agreement is that it was “meretricious.”) But in 1976, the California Supreme Court reversed, ruling that, so long as there was some basis for the relationship other than sex, the courts could recognize an “oral contract” to live together and share the benefits of one another’s labors.
The case went back to the trial court, and the trial began in June, 1979. The testimony included some rather intimate details of their relationship, but Marvin himself claimed that he had never agreed to share his property with her, noting that he had never put her name on his house. About the only property that they owned jointly were some bank accounts that he claimed were merely for convenience while shooting on location.
Because this was a Hollywood trial, though, it was not a typical court proceeding. Singer Mel Torme testified about his opinion of Michelle’s singing abilities. Gene Kelly testified that, despite her claims, he had not offered her a role in a Broadway musical.
At the end of the 11-week trial, the judge ruled that there had been no contract, and thus no entitlement for Michelle to receive half of Lee’s earnings during the six years that they spent together. He did, however, award her $104,000 ($1,000 a week for two years) to “rehabilitate” herself for re-entry into the job market. But even that was overturned by a subsequent appeal, however.
The Supreme Court decision itself, of course, remains on the books although it did Michelle little good. Still, if there was a lesson to be learned, it may be that, if two people are going to go to the trouble of entering into a formal agreement about sharing living arrangements, there is a much simpler way to clarify things at the beginning.
It’s called “marriage.”
Frank Zotter, Jr. is a Ukiah attorney.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Judicial Follies: The “Palimony” case )
Also on site :
- What to know about the trial of an ex-Michigan cop charged in the killing of a Black motorist
- Trump sees no red line that would change tariff policy - The Atlantic
- Pope Tawadros meets with mayor of Polish town