Family Law:
|
A growing trend in the United States is for individuals to cohabitate rather then marry. This creates tremendous problems when the relationship ends. Nevada has adopted the concept of "quasi community property" or "community property by analogy." In Western States Const., Inc. v. Michoff, 108 Nev. 931, 937-938, 840 P.2d 1220, 1224 (Nev.1992), the Nevada Supreme Court stated:
Unmarried couples who cohabit have the same rights to lawfully contract with each other regarding their property as do other unmarried individuals. Id. Thus this court must protect the reasonable expectations of unmarried cohabitants with respect to transactions concerning their property rights. We therefore adopted, in Hay, the rule that unmarried cohabitants will not be denied access to the courts to make property claims against each other merely because they are not married. Id. In Hay, we cited with approval the holding in Marvin v. Marvin, 18 Cal.3d 660, 134 Cal.Rptr. 815, 557 P.2d 106 (1976), which provided:
The courts should enforce express contracts between nonmarital partners except to the extent that the contract is explicitly founded on the consideration of meretricious sexual services.... In the absence of an express contract, the courts should inquire into the conduct of the parties to determine whether that conduct demonstrates an implied contract, agreement or partnership or joint venture, or some other tacit understanding between the parties. The courts may also employ the doctrine of quantum meruit, or equitable remedies such as constructive trust or resulting trusts, when warranted by the facts of the case.
Hay, 100 Nev. at 199, 678 P.2d at 674 (quoting Marvin, 134 Cal.Rptr. at 819, 557 P.2d at 110). We then expressly held that the remedies in Marvin are available to unmarried cohabitants. Id. As stated in Marvin, adults who voluntarily live together "may agree to pool their earnings and to hold all property acquired during the relationship in accord with the law governing community property.quot; Marvin, 134 Cal.Rptr. at 825, 557 P.2d at 116 (emphasis added).
The Court then went on to state:
Marvin, however, strongly supports our statement in Hay that the community property law may apply by analogy. While unmarried couples cannot actually own community property, this is so only because community property is a creature of statute which arises after a couple is legally married. See NRS 123.220. Yet unmarried couples are not precluded from holding their property as though they were married. See Marvin, 134 Cal.Rptr. at 825, 557 P.2d at 116. In such a case, the community property law can apply by analogy. Hay, 100 Nev. at 199, 678 P.2d at 674. Thus we hold that unmarried cohabiting adults may agree to hold property that they acquire as though it were community property.
In Michoff, the cohabiting parties built and developed a business together based on an implied agreement of coequal ownership. The woman was an integral part of the business, even being listed as sole owner for a time in order to increase the chances of getting contracts. They held themselves out as husband and wife, even filing joint tax returns and designating their holdings as community property. As a result the court held that it would have been inequitable not to enforce the agreement of the parties for coequal ownership, allowing the woman to receive her share of their assets, when the relationship ended. It is doubtful that the Nevada Supreme Court would allow the division of "quasi community property" held in one individual’s name if they did not hold themselves out as husband and wife, don’t file joint tax returns, don’t have joint wills, etc.
Indeed, in Gilman v. Gilman, 114 Nev. 416, 956 P.2d 761 (Nev.1998), the Nevada Supreme Court stated that:
The Michoff case was one in which the cohabiting parties built and developed a business together based on an implied agreement of coequal ownership. The woman was an integral part of the business, even being listed as sole owner for a time in order to increase the chances of getting contracts. They held themselves out as husband and wife, even filing joint tax returns and designating their holdings as community property. It would certainly have been inequitable not to enforce the agreement of the parties for coequal ownership, allowing the woman to receive her share of their assets, when the relationship ended. The cohabitation element of the relationship was virtually incidental. |
|
