Alderson v. Alderson (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 450 arose from a long-term nonmarital relationship. (Alderson, at p. 456.) The Aldersons acted as if they were married, had children together, purchased properties together, maintained joint bank accounts, and filed joint tax returns. (Ibid.) When their relationship ended, Steve Alderson forced Jonne Alderson to sign over all of the properties to him. (Id. at p. 457.) She brought an implied contract action against him seeking an equal division of the properties and prevailed in the trial court. (Id. at pp. 457-458.) On appeal, Steve Alderson claimed that the contract was "illegal" because it was based on "'sexual services.'" (Id. at p. 459.) The Court of Appeal rejected his claim. "As the Marvin court pointed out, the fact that a man and woman live together without marriage, and engage in a sexual relationship, does not in itself invalidate agreements between them relating to their earnings, property or expenses." (Id. at p. 463.) "A contract based on 'many . . . things,' no one of which is in itself crucial, is not the same as one based upon a consideration of meretricious sexual services. Before a nonmarital contract is to be deemed unenforceable under Marvin, it must be found to explicitly rest upon a consideration of meretricious sexual services and even then the contract will fail 'only to the extent' that it does so." (Ibid.)