Calsert v. Flores
470 P.3d 464
Utah Ct. App.2020Background:
- Calsert cohabited with Ventura from 1994; she was still legally married to her ex-husband at that time because a 1995 divorce stipulation was never reduced to a decree.
- Calsert and Ventura agreed to “become husband and wife” in November 1995 and lived together until Ventura’s death in December 2017; they presented themselves as husband and wife.
- In April 2018 (after Ventura’s death) Calsert obtained a nunc pro tunc divorce decree in her 1995 divorce case making the divorce retroactive to August 22, 1995 (the NPT Decree).
- Calsert filed a petition seeking recognition of an unsolemnized (common-law) marriage to Ventura; the Estate moved to dismiss under Utah R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing she was not legally capable of marrying while still married to her ex-husband.
- The district court granted the motion to dismiss, taking judicial notice of prior court dockets, declaring the NPT Decree’s nunc pro tunc provision invalid, concluding Calsert lacked legal capacity, and denying leave to amend as moot.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. May the district court consider prior court dockets and use them to contradict plaintiff’s allegations at the 12(b)(6) stage? | Calsert: Court must accept her allegations as true and draw inferences for her; prior dockets cannot be used to negate her pleading. | Estate: Court records are public and properly considered on a motion to dismiss. | Court of Appeals: Trial court erred—if public records are considered, the court still must accept plaintiff’s allegations and view inferences in her favor. |
| 2. Can a district judge in one case declare invalid a nunc pro tunc decree entered by another judge in another case? | Calsert: Another district judge’s final order (the NPT Decree) must be accepted; one judge cannot invalidate another judge’s order in a different case. | Estate: The NPT Decree is substantively infirm and the trial court properly disregarded it. | Court of Appeals: One district judge may not invalidate a final order entered by another judge in a different case; the trial court improperly declared the NPT Decree invalid. |
| 3. Even if the NPT Decree is valid, can Calsert obtain recognition of an unsolemnized marriage given the relationship began while she was married to another? | Calsert: NPT Decree made her legally capable as of Aug 1995 and she can rebut any presumption that the relationship remained illicit, so she should survive dismissal and pursue proof. | Estate: Relationship was illicit at inception (Mar 1994) and is presumed illicit throughout; recognition fails as a matter of law. | Court of Appeals: The presumption that an illicit inception taints the whole relationship is rebuttable; Calsert alleged sufficient facts to survive dismissal and pursue discovery. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mascaro v. Davis, 741 P.2d 938 (Utah 1987) (one district judge ordinarily cannot overrule or invalidate a fellow district judge’s final order in another case)
- Whyte v. Blair, 885 P.2d 791 (Utah 1994) (party claiming an unsolemnized marriage must show mutual consent; relationships illicit in inception are presumptively illicit throughout)
- In re Estate of Murnion, 686 P.2d 893 (Mont. 1984) (illustrates that an illicit initial relationship can later become lawful and rebut the presumption)
- Krouse v. Bower, 20 P.3d 895 (Utah 2001) (standard for reviewing motions to dismiss: accept allegations as true and draw reasonable inferences for the nonmoving party)
- Mitchell v. ReconTrust Co., 373 P.3d 189 (Utah Ct. App. 2016) (documents referred to in the complaint and certain public records may be considered on a motion to dismiss)
- State v. Shreve, 514 P.2d 216 (Utah 1973) (courts may take judicial notice of their own records in the matter before the court, but generally cannot judicially notice records of other proceedings without proper procedures)