But Judge Arthur K. Marshall of Superior Court rejected her claim that she was entitled to half the S3.6 million the actor earned while they lived together and her contention that she deserved a property settlement comparable to that due a wife at the dissolution of a marriage. Miss Marvin had legally changed her name to Marvin shortly before the couple ended their relationship in 1970.Both sides claimed victory in the case, which has attracted international attention because of the film actor’s prominence and its plowing of new legal ground regarding reciprocal property rights of unwed couples. Twenty‐seven months ago, the California Supreme Court upheld the right of Miss Marvin and other unmarried persons to sue for a property division. Judge Marshall found no legal basis for Miss Marvin’s contention that she had either an expressed or an implicit contract with the actor calling for them to share his assets. But he held that under the legal principle of “equitable remedy,” she was entitled to a payment equivalent to $1,000 a week for two years, the highest salary she had earned as a singer, “so that she may have the economic means to re‐educate herself and to learn new employable skills” or polish former skills.