200 Cal. App. 4th 800
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Patricia married Richard in 1973 and separated in 1987; she then dated Henry and later married him in Nevada in 1988 while still married to Richard.
- Patricia’s marriage to Henry was allegedly void under Nevada law because Patricia had a preexisting marriage; Jeffrey argued Patricia’s prior marriage to Henry nullified his later marriage to Patricia.
- Jeffrey’s marriage to Patricia occurred in 1991, after Patricia’s Nevada elopement to Henry; Jeffrey believed the marriage to Patricia was valid.
- Patricia’s marriage to Henry was not dissolved or annulled; Nevada law voids a bigamous marriage without a decree.
- A Nevada court (Williams) suggested an annulment is necessary to sever a bigamous relationship, but this was dicta and not controlling in this case.
- The trial court ruled the marriage to Henry was void and that Patricia could not be a putative spouse, but the appellate court reversed, holding Patricia’s marriage to Henry did not exist when she married Jeffrey.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Patricia’s Nevada marriage to Henry voided her later marriage to Jeffrey | Patricia’s Henry marriage was void; thus Jeffrey’s marriage was valid | Nevada law required an annulment to sever the Henry marriage | Yes; Jeffrey’s marriage to Patricia was valid; Patricia’s Henry marriage void |
| Whether Patricia may be a putative spouse given Jeffrey’s belief in the validity of the marriage | Patricia sought putative spouse status based on good faith belief | Court rejected putative status due to credibility concerns | Unnecessary to decide after ruling on issue 1 |
Key Cases Cited
- Sefton v. Sefton, 45 Cal.2d 872 (Cal. 1955) (judgment of nullity relates back to erase marriage from outset; use for justice between parties; not for third parties)
- Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco, 33 Cal.4th 1055 (Cal. 2004) (void marriage may be collaterally attacked in any proceeding where marriage is material)
- Williams v. Williams, 120 Nev. 559 (Nev. 2004) (alleged bigamy; dicta says annulment is necessary to sever the relationship; putative spouse analysis discussed)
- Shank v. Shank, 100 Nev. 695 (Nev. 1984) (cites Sefton; addresses rights affected by bigamy and credibility)
- Estate of Gregorson, 160 Cal. 21 (Cal. 1911) (void vs voidable marriage; consequences of nullity)