RIP Michelle Triola Marvin, 75, landmark pailmony suit

[Wayback]

You'll recall her claim against Lee Marvin led to ruling that established legal concept of palimony:
http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-me-michelle-triola-marvin31-2009oct31,0,2805574.story

[mshray]

This eventually led to an unintended consequence though, because once the labels of 'husband' and 'wife' were removed from the legal proceedings, the whole issue of gender was reduced to an afterthought - the primary consideration became strictly economical.  It's why my wife probably can't divorce me (unless I do something criminal).  Since I supported her through her MBA (I got my MA while still single) & she's almost always made more money than me since, she'd have to pay me child support/alimony.

Not to worry you guys...I only point that out as a case in point.  In fact our relationship has been very strong in the past couple years, certainly more so than during much of the first ten years.  Gaz can vouch.

[princessofcairo]

You'll recall her claim against Lee Marvin led to ruling that established legal concept of palimony:
http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-me-michelle-triola-marvin31-2009oct31,0,2805574.story

Wow! That's a great story.

[mshray]

You'll recall her claim against Lee Marvin led to ruling that established legal concept of palimony:
http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-me-michelle-triola-marvin31-2009oct31,0,2805574.story

Wow! That's a great story.

I posted my comment before reading the linked article.  A) Wow, she has been Dick Van Dyke's "companion for three decades"!? He's not quite 84, and one of the all-time great Missourians imho.  B) if they mean 'three decades' literally, then she was with him right after the verdict or maybe even before.

[urth]

B) if they mean 'three decades' literally, then she was with him right after the verdict or maybe even before.

True, but the article also says she was with Marvin from 1965 to 1970, he cut her off financially in late 1971, and she filed suit in Feb of 1972. So it wasn't like she went straight from Marvin's company to Van Dyke's.

Btw, I find it a little funny that, despite saying "If a man wants to leave his toothbrush at my house, he better bloody well marry me," she was Van Dyke's companion, not wife, for nearly 30 years. So something changed her mind, although it obviously was worth it as she and Van Dyke had a fairly lengthy relationship.

[princessofcairo]

B) if they mean 'three decades' literally, then she was with him right after the verdict or maybe even before.

True, but the article also says she was with Marvin from 1965 to 1970, he cut her off financially in late 1971, and she filed suit in Feb of 1972. So it wasn't like she went straight from Marvin's company to Van Dyke's.

Btw, I find it a little funny that, despite saying "If a man wants to leave his toothbrush at my house, he better bloody well marry me," she was Van Dyke's companion, not wife, for nearly 30 years. So something changed her mind, although it obviously was worth it as she and Van Dyke had a fairly lengthy relationship.

But she and Dick had a contract. That's even better than being married.