I did not take notes for this class as well. Below are the slides for the class. I was wondering if you could please answer the questions provided in the slides and explain them. Could you also add any important notes for the questions and other bullet points as well. For exam studying purposes. Or if you know documents/website that may help, a lot of material is Arizona specific too.

How should law define family? . I Tradition and I custom I Functional criteria I l I l I Contract I Registration 1 7 \f. More U.S. adults have cohabited than have been married . Cohabitation precedes majority of marriages . Cohabitation widely accepted but most people Who is favor marriage for long-term relationships . Trust/satisfaction/closeness greater among cohabiting married couples and why? . Reasons for cohabiting: . Love, companionship . Financial concerns . Convenience . Test of relationshipMarvin v. Marvin (Cal. 1976) Michelle Triola, former singer, and Lee Marvin, actor, cohabited in California. In sixth year, Lee ended relationship, evicted Michelle, and Michelle sued to enforce express contract and constructive trust. What was Michelle seeking and what did Lee argue? Contracts between cohabitants violate public policy only if \"meretricious services\" are express and inseparable part of consideration. What consideration did Michelle provide? Exploring the Op. n ion Does holding reinstate common law marriage for California? Will it undermine marriage? What potential remedies are available under ' Marvin? I I Potential remedies Contract, express or implied - Implied in fact - Implied in law Constructive/unjust enrichment or resulting trust Quantum meruit - Other equitable remedies WHY DID MICHELLE LOSE ON REMAND? A different view from Illinois Blumenthal v. Brewer (Ill. 2016) Blumenthal and Brewer cohabited in long-term relationship, raised family, commingled property, maintained joint accounts. Brewer devoted self to raising children and other domestic duties. Brewer seeking share of Blumenthal's interest in medical practice and equalization of assets on theory of constructive trust or restitution. WHAT ARE COURT'S RATIONALES FOR REJECTING BREWER'S CLAIMS? Claims for relief based on marriage-like relationship are barred under Hewitt. Inconsistent with abolition of common law marriage COURT'S "Legislative branch far better suited to declare RATIONALES public policy in domestic relations field . . . ." Would undermine institution of marriage Barring claims does not violate Due Process or Equal ProtectionStatus-based remedies Fleming v. Spencer (Wash. App. 2002) Parties cohabited from 1983-1997, pooled resources, filed joint income tax returns, named each other executor in wills. Fleming's claim for division of property based on "meretricious relationship" upheld by TC. Spencer appealing award of property to Fleming. . What is "meretricious relationship" under Washington law? . What is legal consequence of finding such a relationship? . IS THERE ANY DOWNSIDE TO THIS "CONSCRIPTIVE" APPROACH?. Majority of states follow Marvin v. Marvin approach. EX: Carroll v. Lee (AZ 1986). . Some apply presumption of intent to share property arising from marriage-like Cohabitants relationship. EX: AK, NV ' rights . Some states limit contract claims to around US... express contract (NY), and some require that cohabitant contracts be in writing. EX: MN, NJ, TX . A few state courts bar relief where illicit cohabitation forms part of agreement. EX: GA, IL, LA, MSProblem 4-3: You're the law clerk! Terry and Dee lived together for 18 years, raised two children. Terry left fulltime job to care for children, and she alleges that couple agreed to share assets acquired during relationship on theory ofjoint venture/partnership. Claims are based on contract, unjust enrichment, constructive trust. Judge asks for bench memo. How will your analysis differ if you are in: California? Illinois? Washington? . Majority of states follow Marvin v. Marvin. . Washington: presumptive community property rights for "meretricious relationship" aka "committed intimate relationship" Cohabitants ' rights . Some states (AK, NV) apply presumption of intent to share property arising from marriage-like relationship. around US . NY limits contract claims to express contract, and some states (MN, NJ, TX) require that cohabitant contracts be in writing. . Minority (IL, MS, GA): No relief where claims rest on nonmarital cohabitation.Problem 4-3: You're the law clerk! Terry and Dee lived together for 18 years, raised two children. Terry left fulltime job to care for children, and she alleges that couple agreed to share assets acquired during relationship on theory ofjoint venture/partnership. Claims are based on contract, unjust enrichment, constructive trust. Judge asks for bench memo. How will your analysis differ if you are in: California? Illinois? Washington? \fALI (2002) Principles of Law of Family Dissolution Proposa . Domestic partnership defined from . Property acquired during domestic American partnership period is "domestic partnership property" if would have Law Institute been marital property had couple been married. WHICH COMMON LAW APPROACH DOES THIS MOST RESEMBLE?Uniform Cohabitants' Economic Remedies Act Contractual/equitable claims arising from contributions to relationship Contract express and implied Equitable claim Section 7 Rights of cohabitants' spouses Section 8 WHICH COMMON LAW APPROACH DOES THIS MOST RESEMBLE? - Impetus for enactments - Same-sex vs. different-sex - Equal status as spouses vs. more limited rights - Exclusivity - Formal registration and termination procedures . California, Illinois, Nevada: no gender or age restrictions, all rights/responsibilities of spouses Domestic partnership & civil union laws vary ... . Washington: one partner must be over 62 a lot! . Oregon: limited to same-sex couplesCalifornia Domestic Partnership; Law a|l sgousal rights and duties ' GENESIS: UNEQUAL ACCESS TO MARRIAGE - Now available regardless of gender or age. ' Cannot be within prohibited degree of relationship Civil Unions in Vermont . Vermont civil union law: response to 1999 Vt. Supreme Court decision . Automatic conversion of civil union to marriage in 2009 (when same-sex marriage became available) . No new civil unions available ACEDOM VERMONT In UMIT IS AUTOMATIC CONVERSION GOOD POLICY? This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-5A-NCHawaii's reciprocal beneficiary law 0 Exclusive 0 Available to two people \"who are legally prohibited from marrying" 0 Extends subset of rights: e.g., inheritance, workers compensation benefits, hospital visitation, etc. Two unigue statewide frameworks 0 Exclusive 0 Available to any two people, regardless of familial relationship 0 May choose from menu of rights/ responsibilities