Burnham v. Public Employees' Retirement System
208 Cal. App. 4th 1576
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Burnham and Honeyman unsigned a notarized declaration of domestic partnership on a Saturday morning, Burnham died later that afternoon, and Honeyman filed the declaration on the following Monday.
- California law requires that a domestic partnership is established when both persons file a Declaration of Domestic Partnership with the Secretary of State and at filing time both are capable of consenting.
- At issue was whether Honeyman and Burnham were domestic partners at the time of Burnham’s death, affecting Honeyman’s entitlement to Burnham’s CalPERS survivor benefits.
- The trial court held they were not because Burnham had died before filing; CalPERS initially denied benefits but later awarded on a putative spouse theory, which the board reversed after Honeyman appealed.
- The appellate court held that filing with the Secretary of State is a necessary prerequisite and that both parties must be alive and capable of consenting at filing; thus Honeyman and Burnham were not domestic partners at Burnham’s death.
- The court also held the putative spouse doctrine does not apply to these facts and rejected Honeyman’s equal protection claim as remedy-inadequate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether filing a Declaration of Domestic Partnership is a prerequisite | Honeyman: filing is ministerial and not time-sensitive. | California law requires filing to establish a partnership at filing. | Filing is mandatory and must occur while both parties can consent. |
| Whether Honeyman and Burnham were domestic partners at Burnham’s death | Honeyman contends the declaration and belief of partnership sufficed. | Parties must be alive and capable of consenting at filing; Burnham was dead. | They were not domestic partners at the time of Burnham’s death. |
| Whether the putative spouse doctrine applies | Honeyman seeks survivor benefits under putative spouse theory. | Doctrine does not apply under these facts. | Putative spouse doctrine does not apply; no entitlement under it. |
| Whether Honeyman’s equal protection claim warrants the requested remedy | Statutory procedure creates unequal protection requiring remedy. | Remedies for equal protection violations depend on legislative intent; no damages remedy shown. | Equal protection claim fails; no appropriate remedy shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of DePasse, 97 Cal.App.4th 92 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (putative spouse doctrine and property interests in joint efforts)
- In re Domestic Partnership of Ellis & Arriaga, 162 Cal.App.4th 1000 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (putative spouse doctrine in domestic partnerships context)
- Schneider v. Schneider, 183 Cal. 335 (Cal. 1920) (early articulation of implied equal division in marriage property)
- Coats v. Coats, 160 Cal. 671 (Cal. 1911) (annulment context supporting post-void union property interests)
- In re Marriage Cantarella, 191 Cal.App.4th 916 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (ordinance/definition of marriage justice principles)
- People v. Hofsheier, 37 Cal.4th 1185 (Cal. 2006) (remedies for equal protection violations)
- Gates v. Superior Court, 32 Cal.App.4th 481 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (limits damages remedy for equal protection challenges)
- Katzberg v. Regents of University of California, 29 Cal.4th 103 (Cal. 2002) (remedies for equal protection considerations)