Appellant male ex-cohabitator sought review of a decision of the Superior Court of Alameda County

Procedural Posture

Appellant male ex-cohabitator sought review of a decision of the Superior Court of Alameda County (California) that awarded respondent female ex-cohabitator temporary spousal support pending trial.

Overview

Respondent female ex-cohabitator and appellant male ex-cohabitator had cohabited for twenty-one years. Respondent and appellant did not believe that a license for marriage was necessary for a lifetime commitment. During the marriage respondent assisted in maintaining the family while appellant finished law school and did well economically. The couple had joint ownership of several properties during their cohabitation. Respondent filed a complaint, seeking damages, business attorney following termination of the relationship. The trial court awarded respondent temporary spousal support pending trial. The court reversed and remanded holding that an award of temporary spousal support could not be justified as a substantive right under the Family Law Act. There was no proof of an implied contract. Nonmarital cohabitation did not confer any special privilege over and above those of other civil litigants.

Outcome

The court reversed and remanded the temporary spousal award to respondent. The court held that nonmarital cohabitation did not confer any special privilege over and above those of other civil litigants. An award of temporary spousal support could not be justified as a substantive right.