Chaney v. Netterstrom
21 Cal. App. 5th 61
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2018Background
- Netterstrom and Chaney obtained a confidential marriage license, participated in a solemnization ceremony on Nov. 11, 2011, and the officiant signed/authenticated the license.
- The officiant handed the signed license to the parties instead of returning it to the county as required; neither party filed it.
- The couple publicly treated themselves as married (to family/friends, social media) but also represented themselves as "single" on tax returns and loan documents for financial reasons.
- Chaney filed for dissolution in 2015; Netterstrom moved to quash the petition, arguing no valid marriage existed because the license was not returned/registered.
- The trial court found the marriage valid; the Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding solemnization and authenticated license sufficed despite nonregistration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does retention/nonregistration of a signed marriage license invalidate the marriage? | Netterstrom: Failure to return/register the license means no valid marriage. | Chaney: License was issued and ceremony solemnized; nonregistration (by nonparty or parties) doesn't void marriage. | The court held the marriage valid; solemnization with an authenticated license creates marriage; failure to return the license does not invalidate it. |
| Do parties' post-ceremony acts (filing as single, representing themselves unmarried) negate consent or invalidate the marriage? | Netterstrom: Concealment and representations of being unmarried show lack of consent or intent to be married. | Chaney: Consent was given at ceremony; later misrepresentations for financial reasons don't undo consent. | The court held consent occurred at solemnization; later misrepresentations do not negate the valid marriage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cantarella v. Cantarella, 191 Cal.App.4th 916 (Cal. Ct. App.) (failure to register a certificate does not invalidate a marriage; validity determined by consent at solemnization)
- Estate of DePasse, 97 Cal.App.4th 92 (Cal. Ct. App.) (absence of a license before ceremony fatal to marriage claim)
- Ceja v. Rudolph & Sletten, Inc., 56 Cal.4th 1113 (Cal.) (statutory scheme for marriage requirements is comprehensive; question of law)
- Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco, 33 Cal.4th 1055 (Cal.) (review of legislative scheme regulating marriage)
- Burnham v. Public Employees' Retirement System, 208 Cal.App.4th 1576 (Cal. Ct. App.) (solemnization is the necessary step that validates a marriage)