Friedman

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 878 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 879 OPINION Elliott Friedman (appellant), defendant in a " Marvin " action ( Marvin v. Marvin (1976) 18 Cal.3d 660 [ 134 Cal.Rptr. 815 , 557 P.2d 106 ] [ Marvin I ]), appeals from an order awarding temporary spousal support pending trial to Terri Friedman (respondent), plaintiff in that action. We reverse. I. BACKGROUND A. Procedural History On January 13, 1992, respondent filed a complaint, seeking damages and various forms of equitable relief from appellant, following termination of a relationship in which the two had cohabited for twenty-one years. On April 21, 1992, respondent filed a motion, requesting "temporary support" pending trial. The motion was supported by a lengthy declaration by respondent, *Page 880 chronicling the history of her relationship with appellant. Appellant filed opposition to the motion, including a declaration which contradicted a number of facts set forth in respondent's…

I dissent. From our lofty perch my colleagues perceive a very different reality than I do. They fault the trial judge for awarding to a now disabled woman interim support from her partner in a 21-year relationship *Page 891 during which the couple lived as a family and raised 3 children. The majority instead tell her she has no more recourse than a buyer of widgets faced with breach of a sale contract by its supplier. Their advice to her: Stand in line; we'll offer you a trial someday. Judge Duncan was candid and direct: "If ever there is to be an award of support based on an implied contract in a Marvin case, it is difficult to imagine a scenario more compelling than [the one] presented herein." On the basis of the uncontradicted evidence summarized below, I concur fully in Judge Duncan's assessment. The majority gloss over significant details of the parties' 21 years of life together. Plaintiff and defendant began living together in 1967, forming a family which included her seven-year-old son by a previous marriage. In 1971, at defendant's insistence, they moved to Alaska. Once in Alaska they set about homesteading, and built a cabin some 12 miles from the nearest town. When…

Elliott Friedman (appellant), defendant in a “Marvin” action (Marvin v. Marvin (1976) 18 Cal.3d 660 [ 134 Cal.Rptr. 815 , 557 P.2d 106 ] [Marvin /]), appeals from an order awarding temporary spousal support pending trial to Terri Friedman (respondent), plaintiff in that action. We reverse.

I. Background

A. Procedural History

On January 13, 1992, respondent filed a complaint, seeking damages and various forms of equitable relief from appellant, following termination of a relationship in which the two had cohabited for twenty-one years. On April 21,1992, respondent filed a motion, requesting “temporary support” pending trial. The motion was supported by a lengthy declaration by respondent, chronicling the history of her relationship with appellant. Appellant filed opposition to the motion, including a declaration which contradicted a number of facts set forth in respondent’s declaration. The trial court conducted a two-day evidentiary hearing, rendering its decision shortly thereafter.

In its “Statement of Decision on Motion for Temporary Support” the court noted that respondent’s motion presented a “compelling” case for an award of (temporary) support “based on an…