Man Against Woman

"Palimony " suits for sums and lovers

It was pure Hollywood from start to finish. Fading torch singer moves in with tough-guy actor, and for six years their brawling, bibulous romance careens from movie locations to vacation spas to a Malibu beach house. Then, in 1970, he kicks her out and marries his high school sweetheart. His snuffed flame sues for half the $3.6 million he earned during their relationship, and their affair is recounted in steamy detail during eleven weeks of testimony.

The drama of Singer Michelle Triola Marvin vs. Actor Lee Marvin was closely watched by unwedded couples and ex-couples across the land because of the precedent involved: Michelle's basic argument was that she was entitled to a share of Lee's money, just as a wife would be. Deciding the case in Los Angeles superior court, Judge Arthur K. Marshall last week provided an anticlimactic ending. He denied that Michelle had an explicit or implied contract with Lee that entitled her to a portion of his property. But then the judge gave her a going-away present. Noting that Michelle was on unemployment and that her chances of resuming her singing career were "doubtful," he awarded her $104,000 "for rehabilitation purposes . . . to reeducate herself and to learn new, employable skills."

Both sides claimed victory. "I'm proud to have paved the way for other women who have relationships such as mine," declared Michelle, 46. Retorted Lee, 55: "We won on all counts."

To one New York law professor, the award was the equivalent of "severance pay." Said Sidney Traxler, a Beverly Hills family law specialist: "A new element has been thrown into the hopper. Suddenly all women filing these suits will have need for rehabilitation. The judge in effect gave her disguised alimony."

Small as it was, the award may encourage more "palimony" suits. As many as 1,000 have been filed in California alone. Courts in at least 17 other states have ruled that under certain circumstances, former live-in friends can sue their old partners for benefits, while four state courts have rejected the notion. Many unmarried couples have begun drawing up "prenuptial agreements" and "cohabitation contracts."

The trial has an epilogue befitting a grade-B movie. Thanks to the publicity, Marvin is getting more film offers than ever before. Michelle has a contract to write a book. And Marvin Mitchelson, her lawyer, has received a $25,000 advance for a book of his own, and his law business has tripled. Its legal ramifications may be unclear, but Marvin vs. Marvin has proved once again that grime usually pays in Tinsel Town.

Another prominent palimony target won a clear-cut victory last week. British Rock Star Peter Frampton, 28, had been sued by his onetime girlfriend Penny McCall, 30, for 50% of his earnings between 1973 and 1978, a half-interest in a 53-acre estate in Westchester County, N.Y., and a portion of his future income. But New York State Supreme Court Judge Joseph F. Gagliardi noted that the litigant had neglected to get divorced before moving in with Frampton. He threw the case out. Not to do so, he said, would be to condone adultery, still a crime in New York.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.