HAY VS. HAY (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

By the Court, Manoukian, C.J. (Springer, Mowbray, Steffen, and Gunderson, JJ., concurring). Reviewing a summary judgment for the respondent, the court first held that, under Nevada's notice-pleading standard (NRCP 8(a)), the appellant's complaint - alleging that the parties, during roughly 23 years of post-divorce cohabitation, pooled their earnings and acquired property intending it to be treated as a marital community - stated a cause of action for breach of an implied-in-fact contract (Smith v. Recrion Corp., 91 Nev. 666, 541 P.2d 663 (1975)). Building on Warren v. Warren, 94 Nev. 309, 579 P.2d 772 (1978), the court expressly adopted the remedial framework of Marvin v. Marvin (Cal. 1976): courts enforce express contracts between nonmarital partners except those founded on meretricious sexual services and, absent an express contract, may find an implied contract, partnership, or joint venture from the parties' conduct, or apply quantum meruit or constructive/resulting trusts. Where an agreement to acquire and hold property as if married is alleged and proven, community property law applies by analogy. Reaffirming that Nevada does not recognize common law marriage (NRS 122.010), the court held that the policy favoring legal marriage does not justify allowing one cohabitant to abscond with the couple's acquisitions. Because the material issue - the appellant's interest in the property - remained unresolved and title is not conclusive of ownership, summary judgment was improper. Reversed and remanded for trial, with directions to permit amendment of the complaint.

In plain language

Virginia and Tom Hay married in 1949 and divorced in 1957 - but almost immediately after the divorce they moved back in together and lived as a couple for about another 23 years, until they separated in 1981. They had three children (all adults by the time of this case). When they split, they owned various homes, land, and vehicles, titled in different ways: the residence was in both names as joint tenants, other real estate was in Tom's name alone, and the vehicles were titled to 'Tom or Virginia.' Virginia sued, asking the court to stop Tom from disposing of the property and to declare and divide her interest in it. She alleged that throughout their long relationship they had held themselves out as husband and wife, pooled all their money, and bought assets as if they were a marital community or a business partnership, intending the property to be treated as marital community property. The trial court threw out her case on summary judgment, ruling she had not stated a valid legal claim (Tom had already moved the vehicles into his name alone). The Nevada Supreme Court reversed. Nevada is a notice-pleading state, and Virginia's complaint stated at least one valid claim - for breach of an implied agreement to acquire and hold property as if the couple were married or partners. Adopting the reasoning of the well-known California case Marvin v. Marvin, the court held that unmarried people who live together can make enforceable agreements about their property (as long as the agreement is not for sexual services). Those agreements can be express or implied from the couple's conduct, and courts can also use remedies like quantum meruit or constructive trusts. Where a couple agreed to acquire and hold property as if married, Nevada's community property laws apply by analogy. The court stressed that Nevada does not recognize common law marriage and strongly favors legal marriage, but that policy is not served by letting one partner walk off with the couple's assets. Because whether Virginia had an interest in the property was a genuine factual dispute - and title alone does not decide ownership - summary judgment was improper. The case was sent back for trial, with leave for Virginia to amend her complaint.