DONALD F. CONVISER, Certified Family Specialist, serving divorce and family law clients in Los Angeles and Ventura County Courts for over 35 years, owner of Warner Center Law Offices in Woodland Hills California in the San Fernando Valley, offering a free confidential consultation about your divorce or family law situation, writes about Marriage of TEJEDA, a case decided on November 25, 2009, in which an innocent wife sought to have property acquired by her during her marriage to her bigamist husband awarded to her as her separate property.
When Petra married Pablo Tejeda in 1973, she had no idea that Pablo was already married to Margarita, and she remained ignorant that Pablo had committed bigamy until some time in 1996. In the meantime, apparently also unknown to Petra, Pablo divorced Margarita in 1976. In and after 1994, Petra began acquiring properties in her own name (together with other relatives, but without Pablo). In 1996, Pablo filed for a divorce. Petra responded requesting a divorce. Subsequently, she amended her response to seek an annulment of their marriage, requesting that all property in her possession be confirmed as her separate property.
The trial court held that it was required to divide the property under Family Code Section 2251, which provides that if the court determines that the marriage is void or voidable and that either or both parties believed in good faith that the marriage was valid, the court shall 1) declare the party or parties to have the status of a putative spouse; and 2) if the division of property is in issue, divide that property acquired during the union which would have been community property or quasi community property if the union had not been void or voidable. This property is known as 'quasi-marital property'."
Petra appealed, claiming that she was the innocent party, that Section 2251 was ambiguous, and that it should only be applied at the request of the putative (innocent) party.
The appellate court construed FAMILY CODE Section 2251, and affirmed the trial court's ruling, holding that if either party is a putative spouse, quasi-marital property must be divided equally.
The appellate court's reasoning in its opinion included the following:
A marriage that is invalid due to a legal infirmity (such as bigamy of one of the parties) may be recognized as a putative marriage.
Property acquired during a putative marriage (quasi-marital property) is divided as if it were community property.
The status of putative spouse requires innocence or good faith belief. However, once either party is a putative spouse, the union is a putative marriage - a union in which at least one partner believes in good faith that a valid marriage exists.
The appellate court held that the mandate of Section 2251 must be applied without regard to guilt or innocence when the court makes the predicate findings that the marriage is void or voidable, and at least one party to the union maintained a good faith belief in the validity of the marriage.
If a marriage is voidable or void as a result of bigamy of one of the parties (or other appropriate factor) and at least one party has a good faith belief that a valid marriage exists, the parties' property acquired during their marriage is subject to the same rights that would have existed had the parties' marriage not been voidable or void.
The fact that one party is innocent and another is guilty makes no difference. In Marriage of TEJEDA, property acquired by the "innocent" putative party was held to be divisible as quasi marital property and the wrongdoer paid no penalty for his bigamy.
Query what would have been the result had Petra known at the time of the parties' "marriage" that Pablo was a bigamist and that their marriage was void? She may well have been awarded all the property that she had acquired during the parties' union. Section 2251 would have been inapplicable. This writer is unaware whether or not Petra actually knew at the time of the marriage that Pablo was a bigamist, but notes that Petra did obtain her legal immigration status through her marriage to Pablo. She might have been between a rock and a hard place in determining what to assert in her family law case.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
It is common for a divorcing couple to decide about dividing their property and debts themselves (with or without the help of a neutral third party like a mediator), rather than leaving it to the judge. However, if a couple cannot agree, they can submit their property dispute to the court, which will use state law rules to divide the property. Division of property does not necessarily mean a physical division. Rather, the court may award each spouse a percentage of the total value of the property. Each spouse will get personal property, assets, and debts whose worth adds up to his or her percentage. Visit DIY Divorce for more information.
Post a Comment