Recovery of Quantum Meruit

I just completed a bifuricted Nullity trial, nullity granted based upon fraud, and next month we go back for community property matters.  I would like to request the quantum meruit, do i have to file a motion, or can I just request it at begining of trial?

• "Quantum merit is the determination of value of the services extended based on the amount of work and the rate of work existing there for similar work, when an agreement or contract is not existing between the parties."

What the heck does that have to do with a divorce trial?

What is it, exactly, that you want?

Your comment:

What does the heck quantum meruit has to do with divorce?

Ref: Matthew Bender

Before the family law act was enacted, a putative spouse could bring an action in quantum meruit to recover reasonable value of services rendered to the other spouse, less the value of support received.  By allowing sucn and action , courts were able to justify some recovery for a putative spouse in the case of a putative marriage when there was no quasi-marital property to divide. see Lazzarevich v Lassarevich 1948 88 Cal App 2d 708

Recovery was permitted on the theory that the spouse who received the services was unjustly enriched in the amount by which the reasonalbe value of the services renders exceeded the aount of support and maintenance furnished to the spouse performing services. In such a situation it was considered just and equitable for the law to imply a promise to compensate the spouse who performed the service solely because of his or her good faith belief in the validity of the marriage.

So, with that said, I want to seek recovery as putative spouse, and I ask do I have to file a motion or do I simply ask the court for recovery when I go back to trial for community property issues?

OK. consider me educated.

You would have to file a motion.

And your motion would not only have to show good reason for such an award but you'll have to provide points and authorities to show that quantum meruit has been upheld in more recent cases than 60 years ago.

To that end I encourage you to read Marvin v Marvin (1976):

http://www.victorslawp...

And use that as a starting point for additional research.