Question $10$

$2\mathrm{.}5pts$

A man and woman lived together unmarried for $19$ years. He assured her that they would live together as husband and wife but without the restriction of an official marriage license. She relied on those promises when giving up plans for a career in business. She assisted him in many substantial ways over the years as he progressed to becoming a successful neurosurgeon. During the years they displayed all of the trapings of being a married couple. When they split up$,$ he refused to give her anything. She sued in state court claiming an interest in his income, profits and property. She claimed an express contract or an impliedin$-$fact agreement to share the economic wealth that was accumulated. The trial court dismissed, saying there could be no claim if there was no marriage. What is the most likely decision of the appellate court?

There was a right to collect damages based on the massive, lengthy fraudulent scheme that the man perpetrated to keep her within his consuming web but without any economic benefit.

The rights and benefits claimed by the woman are based on a marital union under state law and there being no official marriage, her claims fail to have legal validity.

The couple had an implied$-$in$-$fact contract, in which the woman had relied in good faith to her detriment, and she was entitled to damages.

This was a relationship in which the woman had been compensated for her services quite sufficiently over the years, but she had no residual legal claims that could be asserted.