Byrne v. Laura

Citation52 Cal.App.4th 1054,60 Cal.Rptr.2d 908
Decision Date18 February 1997
Docket NumberNo. A070909,A070909
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
Parties, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1123, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1635 Gladys A. BYRNE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Charon A. LAURA et al., Defendants and Respondents.

Review Denied May 28, 1997.

Stefanie Y. Gandolfi, Law Offices of Stefanie Y. Gandolfi, Kristin Hansen, Nicholas J. Barbarotto, for Appellant.

Michele K. Trausch, Kymberly E. Speer, Bronson, Bronson & McKinnon, for Respondent.

HANLON, Associate Justice.

Appellant Gladys A. Byrne (Flo) sued respondents Charon A. Laura, et al., the administratrix and heirs of the estate of Donald F. Lavezzo (respondents are hereafter referred to collectively as the Estate) to enforce her Marvin agreement (Marvin v. Marvin (1976) 18 Cal.3d 660, 134 Cal.Rptr. 815, 557 P.2d 106) with the decedent (hereafter referred to as Skip). 1 The Estate cross-complained against Flo for damages for removing personal property from the home she had shared with Skip before his death, and for unpaid rent based on her occupancy of the home after his death.

The Estate's motion for summary adjudication was granted as to all of Flo's causes of action other than her quantum meruit claim, the Estate dismissed its claim for conversion without prejudice, and the case proceeded to trial before the court on Flo's quantum meruit claim and the Estate's claim for unpaid rent. The trial court found that there had been no agreement between Skip and Flo to compensate Flo for her services, and that, even if there had been such an agreement, Flo had been adequately compensated for any services she provided. Judgment was entered against Flo for $2,400 for unpaid rent, and in favor of the Estate on all of Flo's causes of action.

On appeal from the judgment, Flo contends that the court erred in granting the summary adjudication motion, and that she was entitled to a trial on her causes of action other than the one for quantum meruit. We reverse the judgment on the claims that were summarily adjudicated and on the Estate's claim for unpaid rent.

I. FACTS

Evidence presented on the motion for summary adjudication included declarations and deposition testimony from Flo, Flo's daughter Denise, Flo's niece, a neighbor of Skip's who had known Skip and Flo since the 1930's and '40's, and two couples, the Maffeis and Simpsons, who had known Flo and Skip since their days together in high school.

Skip and Flo were childhood sweethearts who were engaged to be married when Flo was 18, but Flo broke off the engagement and they married other people. Skip was divorced from his wife in 1974, and Flo's husband died in January of 1987. Skip and Flo began dating in August of 1987, and he proposed marriage to her that December. She declined his proposal because her handicapped children, Lori and Michele, would lose insurance coverage from her deceased husband's employer if she remarried.

Skip and Flo began living together in January of 1988. She moved from San Mateo into his house in San Francisco, and they resided there together until Skip's death in 1993. When Flo was asked why she moved in with Skip, she said, "[b]ecause I loved him and we wanted to be together." The Maffeis and Simpsons said that Skip adored Flo, and called her "the queen."

When Flo moved into Skip's home in San Francisco, she brought furniture and linens from her rented house in San Mateo and commingled her belongings with Skip's. The couple eliminated some of the items Skip had in the home, purchased new furniture together, and opened a joint savings account. Flo cleaned up the house, and saw to the installation of new drapes, carpets, and appliances.

Flo said that, when she moved in, Skip told her that it "was our home, and that anything that he had was mine, and I told him ... whatever I had was his." Skip also told their friends that his possessions in the house belonged to Flo. The Simpsons recalled going over to the house for dinner, Mrs. Simpson "commenting on different pretty hand-painted Italian dishes that maybe were [Skip's] mom's," and Skip saying "well, they belong to the queen, and everything in this house is hers." Skip also said that his car was Flo's, and he apparently put their names on the license plate. When Mr. Simpson "commented about the license plate on the car," Skip said, "well, its our car, you know. It's Flo and Skip."

Skip promised Flo when she moved in, and many times thereafter, that he would take care of her for the rest of her life in exchange for her services as a homemaker. Skip repeatedly reassured Flo that she did not have to worry because he would take care of her and she would "have a roof over [her] head." Skip also assured Flo's niece and her daughter Denise, and told the Maffeis and Simpsons, that he intended to take care of Flo.

During the first four years they lived together, Skip continued working as a plumber in San Francisco, and Flo continued working part time at a school cafeteria in San Mateo. Flo did all of the couple's cooking, cleaning, laundry, and shopping. She handled their entertaining, and took care of Skip if he got sick. Their neighbor, Blanche Maffei, recalled that when she jokingly asked Skip, " 'How's married life?' he answered, 'Wonderful! Flo takes very good care of me.' " They "cohabited," in Flo's words, "as husband and wife."

Flo contributed all of her earnings toward the household, and Skip paid for Flo's living expenses, including paying her monthly credit card balances and giving her grocery and spending money on a regular basis. Skip paid to set up a conservatorship for Flo's handicapped daughters, and made Flo the beneficiary of his retirement benefits. Flo was not relying solely on Skip's pension benefits to provide for her future. She said that Skip was a very private person, and that she did not "think it was my place to ask him how much money he had." But she trusted Skip, and believed him when he indicated that he had sufficient funds in the form of savings, stocks, and bonds to afford them both a comfortable retirement.

Skip retired in March of 1992. Flo continued working, but then began suffering from angina, and underwent double bypass surgery in September of 1992. Flo returned to work after a period of disability, and then retired in May of 1993. In the months when Flo did not work, Skip wrote her a check for $500, in addition to giving her money for anything she needed. Flo said she retired because "Skip wanted [her] to stay home and to retire and spend more time with him." "[H]e relied on [her] staying home so that [they] could have a good life together...."

Skip renewed his marriage proposals to Flo on many occasions while they lived together, but she continued to decline them out of concern over the insurance for her handicapped daughters. On June 15, 1993, Skip and Flo were out to dinner with the Maffeis and Simpsons, and while Flo was away from the table, Skip said that he wanted them all to take a cruise to Hawaii, where he was going to surprise Flo and arrange a marriage ceremony. Skip gave the Simpsons a wedding ring for Flo, and asked them to keep it for him. They planned to spend the July 4th holiday at the Simpsons' place in the country finalizing the dates and details of the cruise and wedding.

However, Skip died unexpectedly on June 29, 1993.

Flo said that she and Skip promised each other and agreed that all of the property they owned when they began living together and later acquired "would be jointly held and mutually owned by us and remain the property of the survivor of us." Skip repeatedly told Flo that everything he had was hers, and Flo's daughter and niece and the Maffeis and Simpsons all recalled statements by Skip to the effect that everything he had was Flo's and would someday belong to her. Skip repeatedly assured Flo that he was going to put everything, including the house, stocks and bonds, in her name. Just a week before he died, he reiterated to her that he was going to put all of his property into a living trust for her benefit.

However, according to Flo, Skip "was a procrastinator, and he'd always say 'Well, I'm going to change everything into your name, the house,' et cetera, through all the years that we lived together. But he was the type of person that didn't move too quickly on things. He procrastinated all his life. [p] So finally, like I said, the week before he died, we sat down and talked and got to the issue that we were going to do the living trust or a will because he said as of then, he didn't have anything legal. So this was something that he had to do."

Skip left an estate worth over $1.2 million. The property consisted of: $844,023.99 in stocks and bonds; $134,689.66 in various bank accounts; the house, appraised at $246,000; furnishings in the house valued at $3,000; and a 1988 Camaro valued at $5,500. Skip also left a will dated December 10, 1975, leaving all of his property to his parents or, if they did not survive him, to Claire Suy.

All of the named beneficiaries under the will had predeceased Skip. The Simpsons said that Skip never talked about family other than his parents, and as far as they knew he had no other relatives. Yolanda Maffei said that Skip "had nobody else in his life but Flo." She said that before he got together with Flo, "Skip was very much alone and very much lonesome. We one time had him for Christmas when nobody else did."

Flo said she was in a state of shock after Skip died. She considered everything of Skip's to be hers, but she did not have an attorney at the time, and did not know what her legal rights might be. She purchased the Camaro Skip had driven, and moved out of the home after she was asked to leave, taking some property in the home with her.

Flo filed a creditor's claim against Skip's estate alleging that she was the "sole and exclusive owner" of all of his property. After the claim was rejected, she filed a complaint against...

To continue reading

Request your trial
60 cases
  • Velez v. Smith
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 12 Septiembre 2006
    ...892.) Support agreements between cohabitants have also been found "enforceable under the Marvin case." (Byrne v. Laura (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1054, 1063, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 908.) But, "[p]roperty rights, if any, under a `Marvin agreement' derive from an express or implied contract or equitable p......
  • Southern Cal. Stroke Rehab. Associates Inc. v. Nautilus Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • 24 Marzo 2011
    ...“The fundamental goal of contractual interpretation is to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties.” Byrne v. Laura, 52 Cal.App.4th 1054, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 908, 916 (1997). “When a contract is reduced to writing, the parties' intention is determined from the writing alone, if possibl......
  • Tukes v. Richard
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 12 Julio 2022
    ...alleged promise.These allegations are sufficient to create a question of fact on the issue of estoppel. In Byrne v. Laura (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1054, 1069, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 908, allegations that the plaintiff retired from her job, moved in with a man, and performed spousal duties for him for ......
  • Consol. Serv. v. KeyBank Nat'l. Assoc.& KeyCorp, 98-4221
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • 26 Agosto 1999
    ...622, 628-29 (Nev. 1963); Newkirk v. C.C. Bradley & Son, Inc., 67 N.Y.S.2d 459, 461-62 (App. Div. 1947); contra, Byrne v. Laura, 60 Cal. Rptr.2d 908, 917-18 (Cal. App. 1997); McCarthy, Lebit, Crystal & Haiman Co. v. First Union Management, Inc., 622 N.E.2d 1093, 1102 (Ohio App. 1993); Reynol......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Family law
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Causes of Action
    • 31 Marzo 2022
    ...2d 337 (1997). A Marvin agreement is enforceable against an estate when one of the parties to the agreement dies. Byrne v. Laura , 52 Cal. App. 4th 1054, 1064, 60 Cal. Rptr. 2d 908 (1997). The breach occurred when the estate refused to enforce the agreement. FAMILY LAW 20-5 Family Law §20-1......
  • Mcle Self-study Article Where Agreements Won't Work - a Word to the Wise Regarding Strict Wage and Hour Liability and Related Claims
    • United States
    • California Lawyers Association California Trusts & Estates Quarterly (CLA) No. 29-2, March 2023
    • Invalid date
    ...822; Chahon v. Schneider (1953) 117 Cal.App.2d 334.81. Marvin v. Marvin (1976) 18 Cal.3d 660, 684.82. Bryne v. Laura (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1054, 1064; see Estate of Fincher (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 343, 348-50.83. Bryne v. Laura, supra, 52 Cal.App.4th at p. 1063; Marvin v. Marvin, supra, 18 Ca......
  • Reviewing a Marvin Action from a Litigator's Perspective
    • United States
    • California Lawyers Association Family Law News (CLA) No. 39-4, December 2017
    • Invalid date
    ...relationship with property division treated as a separate matter that is distinct from other issues such as support. Byrne v. Laura, 52 Cal. App. 4th 1054, 1064 (1997).28. It is also essential to remember that, absent a statute or express contractual language, attorney fees are normally not......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT