What the filings say—on both sides
In his formal answer, Geffen (represented by Glaser Weil) calls the suit “ludicrous and contrived,” arguing it’s an attempt to “embarrass Geffen and extort a settlement.” The response also asserts Michaels charged hundreds of thousands of dollars to Geffen’s accounts, spent on cosmetic procedures, OnlyFans, and escorts, and hid drug use and affairs—claims that Michaels disputes in his filings.
Crucially, Geffen’s response highlights that Michaels “continues to live rent-free” in one of Geffen’s New York apartments and is receiving voluntary monthly payments—facts that, if accurate, could matter in the short-term support calculus.
Michaels’ lawsuit, meanwhile, invokes California’s Marvin doctrine—asking the court to enforce alleged express and implied agreements made during the relationship (both before and during marriage) for lifelong support and a share of assets.
What a Marvin action really is
A Marvin action (from Marvin v. Marvin, Cal. 1976) allows courts to enforce express or implied contracts between intimate partners who are not relying solely on community-property rules—often raised by partners who cohabited or had understandings outside a marital agreement. The California Supreme Court opened the door to such contract claims, which succeed or fail on evidence of the agreement’s existence and terms. Justia
Family-law practitioners note Marvin claims can run alongside a divorce where a party alleges promises that transcend standard spousal-support rules (e.g., lifetime support, asset-sharing rooted in pre-marital cohabitation). But they still require proof of a contract; allegations alone don’t carry the day. Bohm Wildish & Matsen – Family Law Group
