Existing law specifies the circumstances under which a marriage is void or voidable. Existing law requires a court, if a determination is made that a marriage is void or voidable and either party believed in good faith that the marriage was valid, to declare the party or parties to have the status of a putative spouse and to divide the quasi-marital property that would have been community property or quasi-community property if the marriage was valid as if it were community property.

This bill would instead require the court, only upon request of a party who is declared a putative spouse, to divide the quasi-marital property that would have been community property or quasi-community property if the marriage was valid as if it were community property.

Existing law specifies the circumstances under which a marriage is void or voidable. Existing law requires a court, if a determination is made that a marriage is void or voidable and either party believed in good faith that the marriage was valid, to declare the party or parties to have the status of a putative spouse and to divide the quasi-marital property that would have been community property or quasi-community property if the marriage was valid as if it were community property.

This bill would instead require the court, only upon request of a party who is declared a putative spouse, to divide the quasi-marital property that would have been community property or quasi-community property if the marriage was valid as if it were community property.

Existing law specifies the circumstances under which a marriage is void or voidable. Existing law requires a court, if a determination is made that a marriage is void or voidable and either party believed in good faith that the marriage was valid, to declare the party or parties to have the status of a putative spouse and to divide the quasi-marital property that would have been community property or quasi-community property if the marriage was valid as if it were community property.

This bill would prohibit the court from making these declarations or orders unless the party or parties that believed in good faith that the marriage was valid request the court to do so. instead require the court, only upon request of a party who is declared a putative spouse, to divide the quasi-marital property that would have been community property or quasi-community property if the marriage was valid as if it were community property.

Existing law specifies the circumstances under which a marriage is void or voidable. Existing law requires a court, if a determination is made that a marriage is void or voidable and either party believed in good faith that the marriage was valid, to declare the party or parties to have the status of putative spouse and to divide the property that would have been community property if the marriage was valid as if it were community property.

This bill would prohibit the court from making these declarations or orders unless the party or parties that believed in good faith that the marriage was valid request the court to do so.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 380

Author:(Waldron)

As Amended Ver:May 14, 2015

Majority vote

Original Committee Reference: JUD.

SUMMARY: Limits who may be declared a putative spouse. Specifically, this bill provides that a court, in a proceeding to nullify a void or voidable marriage, may not declare parties to be putative spouses or divide property as if the marriage had not been void or voidable, unless requested to do so by the party or parties who believed in good faith that the marriage was valid.

The Senate amendments were technical and clarifying.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Defines marriages that are either void (involving incest or bigamy) or voidable (including marriages in which one party was incapable of consent, the spouse of one party was absent for at least five years, or consent obtained by fraud or force).

2. Provides a procedure to nullify a void or voidable marriage.

3. Requires a court, if a determination is made that a marriage is void or voidable and either party believed in good faith that the marriage was valid, to declare that party or parties to have the status of putative spouse (the party or parties who believed in good faith that the marriage was valid) and to divide the property that would have been community property if the marriage had been valid as if it were community property.

4. Allows for an award of spousal support in the same manner as if the marriage had not been void or voidable, but only to a putative spouse.

5. Allows an award of attorneys' fees for nullity of a void or voidable marriage, but only to a party found to be innocent of fraud or wrongdoing in inducing or entering the marriage and free from knowledge of any matter for which nullity is sought.

6. Defines community property as all property acquired by a married person during the marriage, and provides that community property is to be divided to the parties equally on dissolution of the marriage.

FISCAL EFFECT: None

COMMENTS: A putative spouse is a spouse of a void or voidable marriage who believed in good faith that the marriage was valid. This bill clarifies that a court may not declare a party to be a putative spouse or divide property as though the parties were legally married unless requested to do so by the innocent or putative spouse. In support of this bill, the author writes that this bill "avoids the unfair result that a spouse who knew the marriage was void (e.g., a party who was already married) would be able to benefit from his or her fraud, as at least one court has interpreted the statute's current language."

Brief Explanation of Void or Voidable Marriages. A marriage between close relatives – parents and children, siblings, and aunts or uncles and nieces or nephews – is void as matter of law, as is a marriage to someone who is already married. In addition, certain marriages are voidable and can be nullified. A marriage is voidable if:

1. One party could not consent to the marriage, was of unsound mind or was not physically capable of "entering into the marriage state";

2. One party's previous spouse, who was thought to be dead, was not; or

3. Consent to the marriage was obtained by fraud or force.

Void and voidable marriages are terminated when a court determines them to be a nullity at which point the parties are returned to an unmarried state.

Putative Spouse Doctrine. If a court determines that a marriage is void or voidable and that either or both parties believed in good faith that the marriage was valid, the court can declare those parties putative parties and can divide the property as though they had been married (dividing the "quasi-community property" between the parties). In addition, the court can order spousal support paid to a putative spouse and can award attorney's fees, if appropriate, to the spouse found "innocent of fraud or wrongdoing" (essentially the putative spouse). While the spousal support and attorney's fees provisions specifically limit an award to the innocent or putative spouse, the property division statute does not specifically limit the choice to divide property as though the parties were married to the putative spouse.

A California court of appeals summed up the policy reasons behind the putative spouse doctrine. Its reasoning also explains the need for this bill:

The putative spouse doctrine is "an equitable doctrine first recognized by the judiciary, and later codified by the Legislature." In 1943, our Supreme Court stated that "[i]t is well settled that a woman who lives with a man as his wife in the belief that a valid marriage exists, is entitled upon termination of their relationship to share in the property acquired by them during its existence."

The doctrine, however, cannot be invoked unless the putative spouse has a good faith belief in the existence of a valid marriage...

The purpose of the doctrine is to protect the "innocent" party or parties of an invalid marriage from losing community property rights... This conclusion is dictated by simple justice, for where persons domiciled in such a jurisdiction, believing themselves to be lawfully married to each other, acquire property as the result of their joint efforts, they have impliedly adopted... the rule of an equal division of their acquisitions, and the expectation of such a division should not be defeated in the case of innocent persons." (In re Marriage of Guo and Sun (2010) 186 Cal. App. 4^th 1491, 1496 (citations omitted).)

California Supreme Court Clarifies That Good Faith Standard is Subjective. In a recent case, a unanimous California Supreme Court clarified that when making a determination as to a party's good faith belief in the marriage, the court must consider a subjective standard and not an objective standard. In explaining the subjective standard, the court held:

The good faith inquiry is a subjective one that focuses on the actual state of mind of the alleged putative spouse. While there is no requirement that the claimed belief be objectively reasonable, good faith is a relative quality and depends on all the relevant circumstances, including objective circumstances. In determining good faith, the trial court must consider the totality of the circumstances, including the efforts made to create a valid marriage, the alleged putative spouse's personal background and experience, and all the circumstances surrounding the marriage. Although the claimed belief need not pass a reasonable person test, the reasonableness or unreasonableness of one's belief in the face of objective circumstances pointing to a marriage's invalidity is a factor properly considered as part of the totality of the circumstances in determining whether the belief was genuinely and honestly held. (Ceja v. Rudolph & Sletten (2013) 56 Cal.4th 1113, 1128.)

Analysis Prepared by: Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0001017

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 380

Author: Waldron (R)

Amended: 5/14/15 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 6/16/15

AYES: Jackson, Moorlach, Anderson, Hertzberg, Leno, Monning, Wieckowski

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 4/13/15 (Consent) - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Marriage: putative spouses

SOURCE: Conference of California Bar Associations

DIGEST: This bill requires the court, only upon request of a party who is declared a putative spouse, to divide the quasi-marital property that would have been community property or quasi-community property if the marriage was valid as if it were community property.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Defines marriages that are either void (i.e., involving incest or bigamy) or voidable (e.g., including marriages in which one party was incapable of consent, the spouse of one party was absent for at least five years, or consent obtained by fraud or force). (Fam. Code Secs. 2200-01.)

2. Provides that if a marriage is void or voidable and either party believed in good faith that the marriage was valid, the court must declare the party or parties to have the status of putative spouse, and divide the property that would have been community property if the marriage was valid as if it were community property. (Fam. Code Sec. 2251.)

This bill:

1. Prohibits, for the purposes of community property, the court from determining that a spouse was putative unless he or she personally had a good faith belief that the marriage was valid.

2. Prohibits the court from dividing property as if the marriage had been valid unless requested to do so by a putative spouse.

Background

The California Family Code defines legal marriage as a “personal relation arising out of a civil contract between two persons, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary.” (Fam. Code Sec. 300.) Although marriage is generally treated as a private and personal decision, the courts have long held that the state has an important interest in the institution of marriage, and has therefore regulated limits for those who can marry based on a variety of factors, including age, affinity, consanguinity, and mental capacity.

The putative spouse doctrine is considered a remedial device to validate an otherwise invalid marriage. Exercising equitable powers, the courts have invoked the putative spouse doctrine to protect those who in good faith, attempted to comply with the formalities required for valid marriage. In general, the doctrine applies when at least one of the parties has a good faith belief in the existence of a legal marriage. Even before its codification by the Legislature in 1969, the courts applied the doctrine to both void and voidable marriages. The codification of the putative spouse doctrine was part of a comprehensive revision of California’s family laws which included the introduction of no-fault divorce. Thus, prior to 1970, fault impacted the division of property in a divorce, entitling the “innocent” spouse to a greater share of the community property.

In In re Marriage of Tejeda (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 973, the Court of Appeal looked at the case of a bigamous husband and innocent wife living in a putative marriage for over 30 years. When the husband petitioned for dissolution, the wife petitioned for nullification and requested that property titled in her name be confirmed as her separate property. The Court found the putative spouse statute was clear and unambiguous, requiring that upon a finding that one spouse has a good faith belief in the existence of a legal marriage, the union itself becomes a putative marriage. The property acquired during the putative marriage, although titled in the innocent wife’s name, was then characterized as quasi-marital property and divided equally between the spouses.

This bill, seeks to better protect “innocent” spouses by amending the Family Code to provide that only a putative spouse, who believed in good faith that the marriage was valid, can elect to have quasi-community property divided equally between the spouses.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 6/19/15)

Conference of California Bar Associations (source)

Association of Certified Family Law Specialists

Executive Committee of the Family Law Section of the State Bar

OPPOSITION: (Verified 6/19/15)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The Association of Certified Family Law Specialists writes that this bill ensures that “a party who did not believe in good faith that the marriage was valid shall not be entitled to the status of putative spouse and shall not be entitled to request the court to issue an order dividing the property that ‘would have been’ community or quasi-community property.”

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 4/13/15

AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins

NO VOTE RECORDED: Harper

Prepared by: Nichole Rapier / JUD. / (916) 651-4113

6/19/15 13:34:18

**** END ****

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair

2015-2016 Regular Session

Bill No: AB 380 (Author:Waldron)

Version: May 14, 2015

Hearing Date: June 16, 2015

Fiscal: No

Urgency: No

Consultant: NR

SUBJECT

Marriage: putative spouses

DESCRIPTION

Existing law specifies the circumstances under which a marriage is void or voidable, and requires the court to declare either party, who believed in good faith that the marriage was valid, to have the status of a putative spouse and to divide the quasi-marital property as if it were community property.

This bill would, instead, require the court, only upon request of a party who is declared a putative spouse, to divide the quasi-marital property as if it were community property.

BACKGROUND

The California Family Code defines legal marriage as a “personal relation arising out of a civil contract between two persons, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary.” (Fam. Code Sec. 300.) Although marriage is generally treated as a private and personal decision, the courts have long held that the state has an important interest in the institution of marriage, and has therefore regulated limits for those who can marry based on a variety of factors, including age, affinity, consanguinity, and mental capacity.

The putative spouse doctrine is considered a remedial device to validate an otherwise invalid marriage. Exercising equitable powers, the courts have invoked the putative spouse doctrine to protect those who in good faith, attempted to comply with the formalities required for valid marriage. In general, the doctrine applies when at least one of the parties has a good faith belief in the existence of a legal marriage. Even before its codification by the legislature in 1969, the courts applied the doctrine to both void and voidable marriages. The codification of the putative spouse doctrine was part of a comprehensive revision of California’s family laws which included the introduction of no-fault divorce. Thus, prior to 1970, fault impacted the division of property in a divorce, entitling the “innocent” spouse to a greater share of the community property.

In In re Marriage of Tejeda (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 973, the Court of Appeal looked at the case of a bigamous husband and innocent wife living in a putative marriage for over thirty years. When the husband petitioned for dissolution, the wife petitioned for nullification and requested that property titled in her name be confirmed as her separate property. The court found the putative spouse statute was clear and unambiguous, requiring that upon a finding that one spouse has a good faith belief in the existence of a legal marriage, the union itself becomes a putative marriage. The property acquired during the putative marriage, although titled in the innocent wife’s name, was then characterized as quasi-marital property and divided equally between the spouses.

This bill, seeking to better protect “innocent” spouses, would amend the Family Code to provide that only a putative spouse, who believed in good faith that the marriage was valid, can elect to have quasi-community property divided equally between the spouses.

CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW

Existing law defines marriages that are either void (i.e., involving incest or bigamy) or voidable (e.g., including marriages in which one party was incapable of consent, the spouse of one party was absent for at least five years, or consent obtained by fraud or force). (Fam. Code Secs. 2200-01.)

Existing law provides that if a marriage is void or voidable and either party believed in good faith that the marriage was valid, the court must declare the party or parties to have the status of putative spouse, and divide the property that would have been community property if the marriage was valid as if it were community property. (Fam. Code Sec. 2251.)

This bill would, for the purposes of community property, prohibit the court from determining that a spouse was putative unless he or she personally had a good faith belief that the marriage was valid.

This bill would prohibit the court from dividing property as if the marriage had been valid unless requested to do so by a putative spouse.

COMMENT

1. Stated need for the bill

According to the author:

While other provisions of the Family Code include provisions of the putative spouse doctrine and grant relief only to a putative (i.e., innocent) spouse, the language of Family Code Section 2251 applies community property to any case where there is a putative spouse, even when that would not benefit the putative spouse. … AB 380 would revise the language of Family Code Section 2251 to make clear that the community property division in that statute can only be invoked at the request, and for the benefit, of the putative spouse.

2. Would allow an innocent spouse to elect how quasi-marital property is divided

This bill, seeking to address what the Conference of California Bar Associations, sponsor, calls a “split” in case law, would provide that only an “innocent spouse” may request a division of quasi-community property. The sponsor argues that this bill would “make the statute consistent with related statutes and the historic intent of the putative spouse doctrine.”

To that end, this bill would arguably invalidate In re Marriage of Tejeda (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 973 where the court, after finding that the wife was indeed an innocent spouse, deemed the marriage a putative marriage, and divided all property acquired during the marriage equally between parties (see Background). In reaching its decision, the Tejeda court considered two related statutes and the purpose of the putative spouse doctrine. Family Code Section 2254 permits an order of spousal support for a putative spouse, and Section 2255 provides for attorney’s fees and costs to innocent putative spouses. Since the Legislature singled out the “innocent” party in providing for fees, and likewise singled out the “putative spouse” in providing for support, but did not limit quasi-marital property division to an innocent spouse, the Tejeda court concluded that the Legislature intended for an equal division of the marital property even if one of the spouses was “guilty.”

Proponents of this bill argue that its provisions are needed to protect an innocent spouse from a spouse who knowingly entered into a bigamous marriage, did not contribute to the community, and seeks to take half of the quasi-community property. In support, the Association of Certified Family Law Specialists writes that this bill would ensure that “a party who did not believe in good faith that the marriage was valid shall not be entitled to the status of putative spouse and shall not be entitled to request the court to issue an order dividing the property that ‘would have been’ community or quasi-community property.” Staff notes that while the result in Tejada appears to have created a windfall for the bigamous husband, the property division actually gave the innocent wife what she expected from a legal marriage – an equal division of the marital property.

This bill would, instead, allow an innocent spouse to decide whether he or she would like to take a community share, or alternatively have all property deemed separate property. This would arguably create an additional factor that parties to a dissolution will dispute, and may be underused by self-represented litigants who do not understand how the putative spouse doctrine is applied.

3. Subjective standard used in determining if a spouse is innocent

In 2013, the California Supreme Court held that in determining whether a spouse had a good faith belief in the validity of a marriage is an inquiry of a subjective nature that focuses on the actual state of mind of the alleged putative spouse. In Ceja v. Rudolph and Sletten, Inc. 56 Cal.4th 1113, the court explained:

While there is no requirement that the claimed belief be objectively reasonable, good faith is a relative quality and depends on all the relevant circumstances, including objective circumstances. In determining good faith, the trial court must consider the totality of the circumstances, including the efforts made to create a valid marriage, the alleged putative spouse’s personal background and experience, and all the circumstances surrounding the marriage. Although the claimed belief need not pass a reasonable person test, the reasonableness or unreasonableness of one’s belief in the face of objective circumstances pointing to a marriage’s invalidity is a factor properly considered as part of the totality of the circumstances in determining whether the belief was genuinely and honestly held. (Id. at 1128.)

Thus, the law protects individuals who had a genuine, good faith belief in the validity of a marriage, whether or not that belief was objectionably reasonable. As more and more individuals represent themselves in family law courts, the need to protect genuinely held, good faith beliefs takes on additional importance. With regard to the putative spouse doctrine, the subjective nature of this inquiry should also serve to protect individuals who learned of a defect after marriage, but thought in good faith that remedying the defect would validate a marriage.

Support: Association of Certified Family Law Specialists; Executive Committee of the Family Law Section of the State Bar

Opposition: None Known

HISTORY

Source: Conference of California Bar Associations

Related Pending Legislation: None Known

Prior Legislation: SB 254 (Harman, 2011), substantially similar to this bill, was never set for hearing.

Prior Vote:

Assembly Floor (Ayes 79, Noes 0)

Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 10, Noes 0)

**************

Date of Hearing: April 7, 2015

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Mark Stone, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 380

Author:(Waldron) – As Introduced Ver:February 18, 2015

PROPOSED CONSENT

SUBJECT: Marriage: putative spouses

KEY ISSUE: SHOULD THE LAW BE CLARIFIED SO THAT ONLY THE INNOCENT, PUTATIVE SPOUSE IN A VOID OR VOIDABLE MARRIAGE, IS PERMITTED, WHEN THE MARRIAGE IS NULLIFIED, TO REQUEST THAT PROPERTY BE DIVIDED AS THOUGH THE PARTIES HAD BEEN PROPERLY MARRIED?

SYNOPSIS

A putative spouse is a spouse of a void or voidable marriage who believed in good faith that the marriage was valid. This non-controversial bill clarifies that a court may not declare a party to be a putative spouse or divide property as though the parties were legally married unless requested to do so by the innocent or putative spouse. In support of the bill, the author writes that this bill "avoids the unfair result that a spouse who knew the marriage was void (e.g., a party who was already married) would be able to benefit from his or her fraud, as at least one court has interpreted the statute's current language." This bill is sponsored by the Conference of California Bar Associations. It has no known opposition.

SUMMARY: Limits who may be declared a putative spouse. Specifically, this bill provides that a court, in a proceeding to nullify a void or voidable marriage, may not declare parties to be putative spouses or divide property as if the marriage had not been void or voidable, unless requested to do so by the party or parties who believed in good faith that the marriage was valid.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Defines marriages that are either void (involving incest or bigamy) or voidable (including marriages in which one party was incapable of consent, the spouse of one party was absent for at least five years, or consent obtained by fraud or force). (Family Code Sections 2200-01. Unless stated otherwise, all further statutory references are to that code.)

2. Provides a procedure to nullify a void or voidable marriage. (Section 2250 et seq.)

3. Requires a court, if a determination is made that a marriage is void or voidable and either party believed in good faith that the marriage was valid, to declare that party or parties to have the status of putative spouse (the party or parties who believed in good faith that the marriage was valid) and to divide the property that would have been community property if the marriage had been valid as if it were community property. (Section 2251.)

4. Allows for an award of spousal support in the same manner as if the marriage had not been void or voidable, but only to a putative spouse. (Section 2254.)

5. Allows an award of attorneys' fees for nullity of a void or voidable marriage, but only to a party found to be innocent of fraud or wrongdoing in inducing or entering the marriage and free from knowledge of any matter for which nullity is sought. (Section 2255.)

6. Defines community property as all property acquired by a married person during the marriage, and provides that community property is to be divided to the parties equally on dissolution of the marriage. (Sections 760 and 2550.)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed non-fiscal.

COMMENTS: A putative spouse is a spouse of a void or voidable marriage who believed in good faith that the marriage was valid. This bill clarifies that a court may not declare a party to be a putative spouse or divide property as though the parties were legally married unless requested to do so by the innocent or putative spouse. In support of the bill, the author writes that this bill "avoids the unfair result that a spouse who knew the marriage was void (e.g., a party who was already married) would be able to benefit from his or her fraud, as at least one court has interpreted the statute's current language."

Brief Explanation of Void or Voidable Marriages: A marriage between close relatives -- parents and children, siblings, and aunts or uncles and nieces or nephews -- is void as matter of law, as is a marriage to someone who is already married. In addition, certain marriages are voidable and can be nullified. A marriage is voidable if:

• One party could not consent to the marriage, was of unsound mind or was not physically capable of "entering into the marriage state";

• One party's previous spouse, who was thought to be dead, was not; or

• Consent to the marriage was obtained by fraud or force.

Void and voidable marriages are terminated when a court determines them to be a nullity at which point the parties are returned to an unmarried state.

Putative Spouse Doctrine: If a court determines that a marriage is void or voidable and that either or both parties believed in good faith that the marriage was valid, the court can declare those parties putative parties and can divide the property as though they had been married (dividing the "quasi-community property" between the parties). In addition, the court can order spousal support paid to a putative spouse and can award attorney's fees, if appropriate, to the spouse found "innocent of fraud or wrongdoing" (essentially the putative spouse). (Sections 2251, 2254, 2255.) While the spousal support and attorney's fees provisions specifically limit an award to the innocent or putative spouse, the property division statute does not specifically limit the choice to divide property as though the parties were married to the putative spouse.

A California court of appeals summed up the policy reasons behind the putative spouse doctrine. Its reasoning also explains the need for this bill:

The putative spouse doctrine is "an equitable doctrine first recognized by the judiciary, and later codified by the Legislature." In 1943, our Supreme Court stated that "[i]t is well settled that a woman who lives with a man as his wife in the belief that a valid marriage exists, is entitled upon termination of their relationship to share in the property acquired by them during its existence."

The doctrine, however, cannot be invoked unless the putative spouse has a good faith belief in the existence of a valid marriage. . . .

The purpose of the doctrine is to protect the “innocent” party or parties of an invalid marriage from losing community property rights. . . . This conclusion is dictated by simple justice, for where persons domiciled in such a jurisdiction, believing themselves to be lawfully married to each other, acquire property as the result of their joint efforts, they have impliedly adopted . . . the rule of an equal division of their acquisitions, and the expectation of such a division should not be defeated in the case of innocent persons."

(In re Marriage of Guo and Sun (2010) 186 Cal. App. 4^th 1491, 1496 (citations omitted).)

California Supreme Court Clarifies That Good Faith Standard is Subjective: In a recent case, a unanimous California Supreme Court clarified that when making a determination as to a party's good faith belief in the marriage, the court must consider a subjective standard and not an objective standard. In explaining the subjective standard, the court held:

The good faith inquiry is a subjective one that focuses on the actual state of mind of the alleged putative spouse. While there is no requirement that the claimed belief be objectively reasonable, good faith is a relative quality and depends on all the relevant circumstances, including objective circumstances. In determining good faith, the trial court must consider the totality of the circumstances, including the efforts made to create a valid marriage, the alleged putative spouse's personal background and experience, and all the circumstances surrounding the marriage. Although the claimed belief need not pass a reasonable person test, the reasonableness or unreasonableness of one's belief in the face of objective circumstances pointing to a marriage's invalidity is a factor properly considered as part of the totality of the circumstances in determining whether the belief was genuinely and honestly held.

(Ceja v. Rudolph & Sletten (2013) 56 Cal.4^th 1113, 1128.)

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The Conference of California Bar Associations writes that the bill "is a reasonable and much-needed bill to provide clarity to statutes and to reaffirm both the Legislature's intent and the Supreme Court's holding that the putative spouse doctrine is intended to protect only the innocent spouse, not one who knowingly entered into an invalid marriage."

Previous Legislation: The provision in this bill had been included in the Committee's civil omnibus bill last year, AB 2747 (Judiciary), Chap. 913, Stats. 2014. While it passed out of this Committee and off the Assembly Floor, it was removed in the Senate Judiciary Committee because it was deemed too "substantive."

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Conference of California Bar Associations (sponsor)

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916) 319-2334