Beckman

This appeal presents the contending property claims of a woman and man at the termination of a nonmarital family relationship 1 which had lasted almost 12 years. The appeal encounters a legal syndrome consisting of two decisions of the California Supreme Court, Vallera v. Vallera (1943) 21 Cal.2d 681 [ 134 P.2d 761 ]; *532 Keene v. Keene (1962) 57 Cal.2d 657 [ 21 Cal.Rptr. 593 , 371 P.2d 329 ], and two recent decisions of the California Courts of Appeal, In re Marriage of Cary (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 345 [ 109 Cal.Rptr. 862 ], and Estate of Atherley (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 758 [ 119 Cal.Rptr. 41 ],

In Vallera v. Vallera, supra, the court held that the female party gains no interest in property accumulated during the relationship; at its termination she is entitled to share in the accumulated assets only if there has been an express agreement to pool funds or, in the absence of agreement, she has contributed funds toward the acquisition of the property. A minority of the court protested that the majority opinion denied the woman credit for the value of her contributions as housekeeper and cook.

In Keene v. Keene the majority of the court confirmed Vallera , making explicit the…

I concur in the decision and substantially in the reasoning of Justice Friedman; my sole disagreement is with the dictum contained in his next to last paragraph.

*536 I recognize no “developing social attitude” which should portend the enunciation of a public policy inimical to the Vallera-Keene doctrine. Alone out of the seven Keene participants, Justice Peters mistakenly saw the doctrine as discriminating in favor of the male gender (Keene v. Keene (1962) 57 Cal.2d 657, 668 [ 21 Cal.Rptr. 593 , 371 P.2d 329 ]); the other six recognized the reality that it favors neither sex, but extends its touch equally to both. Indeed the majority opinion expressly notes cases applying the rule to circumstantially similar claims by men to a share of earnings or accumulations of women (Id. at p. 662, fn. 2). Thus the modern trend toward increased awareness of the equality of the sexes surely furnishes no basis for altering the Vallera-Keene doctrine. On the contrary, it fortifies it.

The doctrine was spawned by concepts of morality, not chauvinism. By protecting one’s actual contribution to the other’s nominal property and by recognizing agreements to share, both express and implied (id., p.…

I join in the concurring opinion of Justice Paras.

FRIEDMAN, Acting P.J.

This appeal presents the contending property claims of a woman and man at the termination of a nonmarital family relationship [1] which had lasted almost 12 years. The appeal encounters a legal syndrome consisting of two decisions of the California Supreme Court, Vallera v. Vallera (1943) 21 Cal.2d 681 [ 134 P.2d 761 ]; Keene v. Keene (1962) 57 Cal.2d 657 [ 21 Cal. Rptr. 593 , 371 P.2d 329 ], and two recent decisions of the California Courts of Appeal, In re Marriage of Cary (1973) 34 Cal. App.3d 345 [ 109 Cal. Rptr. 862 ], and Estate of Atherley (1975) 44 Cal. App.3d 758 [ 119 Cal. Rptr. 41 ].

In Vallera v. Vallera, supra , the court held that the female party gains no interest in property accumulated during the relationship; at its termination she is entitled to share in the accumulated assets only if there has been an express agreement to pool funds or, in the absence of agreement, she has contributed funds toward the acquisition of the property. A minority of the court protested that the majority opinion denied the woman credit for the value of her contributions as housekeeper and cook.

In Keene v. Keene the majority of the court confirmed…