The Issues of Unmarried Cohabitation Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

The Issues of Unmarried Cohabitation - Assignment Example Hence, going by the implicit ramifications of the California Community Property Law, Graves is entitled to all claims that arose in the light of her having a marital relationship with Ennis. 2. Even if Graves and Ennis had both been male unmarried cohabitants who had been living together for the past seven years, had commingled their properties and had life insurance policies naming each other as beneficiaries, Graves still had a cause of action for NIED because there still existed an express and implied-in-fact contract between them if one goes by the intent and spirit of Marvin vs. Marvin, amply corroborated and sanctified by the action of Graves comingling his property with Ennis, and Ennis naming him as beneficiary in his life insurance policy. Hence, principally speaking Graves did suffer a loss of consortium, irrespective of him and Ennis being males. Moreover, varied legal provisions in California, like The California Family Rights Act, extend similar protections to the same-sex domestic partners as they extend to heterosexual couples. 1. Yes, California has indeed adopted a paradoxical position towards the rights of unmarried couples by extending those rights in the contract, but not in tort. In Marvin vs. Marvin, the honourable court did agree that there existed an express an implied-in-fact contract between the same sex cohabiting couples. If the economic ramifications of the decision in Marvin vs. Marvin extended a financial validity to the relationship between the same sex cohabiting couples, it is but natural to arrive at the premise that in an emotive context, there does is some sort of relationship of emotional dependency between the unmarried cohabiting couples. However, in Elden vs. Sheldon, the California court instead of extending the Marvin decision in an emotional sphere and consequently in the sphere of tort, rather declared any claim for loss of consortium as inapplicable in the case of committed but not married partners, thereby causing much confusion and ambiguity.  Ã‚