In re Marriage of Garcia
D070493
| Cal. Ct. App. | Aug 4, 2017Background
- Florencia filed a dissolution petition in June 2014 alleging a 1989 marriage to Juan; Juan moved to quash service and the court found no valid marriage, quashed service, and dismissed that Dissolution Action in October 2014; Florencia did not appeal.
- In April 2015 Florencia filed a separate Nullity Action seeking annulment (voidable for fraud), property division/relief, spousal support, and fees; Juan moved to quash service relying on the prior dismissal.
- The family court held a short cause trial to determine putative-spouse status and issued a Putative Spouse Order finding Florencia is a spouse or putative spouse and may pursue claims in the Nullity Action; that order continued hearing on support and fees.
- At the continued hearing the court issued a Support Order awarding spousal-support arrears, temporary ongoing support, and $20,000 in attorney fees.
- Juan appealed both orders, arguing res judicata (claim preclusion) based on the dismissal of the earlier Dissolution Action; the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as to the Putative Spouse Order for lack of jurisdiction and affirmed the Support Order on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Florencia) | Defendant's Argument (Juan) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Putative Spouse Order is appealable | N/A (Florencia defended on merits below) | Juan appealed the Putative Spouse Order | Dismissed — order is interlocutory, not a final appealable judgment; appellate court lacks jurisdiction |
| Whether the Support Order (temporary support, arrears, fees) is appealable | N/A | Juan appealed the Support Order along with Putative Order | Appealable under collateral-order doctrine; court reached merits |
| Whether claim preclusion (res judicata) bars the Nullity Action | Nullity alleges different primary right (fraud at inception); therefore not barred | The earlier dismissal of the Dissolution Action (finding no marriage) is final and should bar identical relief in the Nullity Action | Rejected Juan’s argument — Dissolution and Nullity involve different primary rights (terminate a valid marriage vs. declare no valid marriage existed), so claim preclusion does not apply |
| Whether the Support Order was reversible because of res judicata | N/A | Juan contended Florencia not entitled to support because dismissal of dissolution precludes nullity claims | Affirmed — Juan failed to meet burden of showing prejudicial error; Support Order stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Velez v. Smith, 142 Cal.App.4th 1154 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (putative-spouse doctrine and Family Code §2251 explained)
- Sefton v. Sefton, 45 Cal.2d 872 (Cal. 1955) (annulment relates back and declares a marriage void ab initio)
- Millar v. Millar, 175 Cal. 797 (Cal. 1917) (nullity determines no valid marriage ever existed)
- In re Marriage of Freitas, 209 Cal.App.4th 1059 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (temporary spousal support orders are directly appealable under collateral-order doctrine)
- Skelley, 18 Cal.3d 365 (Cal. 1976) (collateral-order doctrine applied to temporary support/fees appeals)
- Crowley v. Katleman, 8 Cal.4th 666 (Cal. 1994) (primary-rights theory for claim preclusion explained)
- Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 48 Cal.4th 788 (Cal. 2010) (cause of action defined by the primary right — the harm suffered)
- Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co., 28 Cal.4th 888 (Cal. 2002) (distinction between claim preclusion and issue preclusion/analysis of preclusion doctrines)