Voidable marriage

[tranquility]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA
'Twas opined and directed to the idiot known as tranquility:

1. File response and claim the marriage is voidable

Said idiot might respond:
1. I stipulate there was a marriage and humbly ask what grounds do you seek to make it voidable? (While understanding the only real possibility is fraud.)
2. Prove it.

Now a smart lawyer like DrbyDesign01 might actually be able to prove fraud, thus voiding the marriage. What result?

2251. (a) If a determination is made that a marriage is void or
voidable and the court finds that either party 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.
(2) If the division of property is in issue, divide, in accordance
with Division 7 (commencing with Section 2500), 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".
(b) If the court expressly reserves jurisdiction, it may make the
property division at a time after the judgment.

Ah-ha says the wise attorney! We have a premarital agreement!

But, says the idiot, you have no proof I was actually represented, thus voiding any portion having to do with support as a matter of law. Also, there is no separate writing expressing, under 1615, thus making the entire agreement was not executed voluntarily and, hence, not enforceable as a matter of law.

Estoppel! Says the wise guy attorney.

I am just an idiot, says the other, but doesn't estoppel require reasonable reliance? For example, if Doofus McGraw had a verbal agreement with Richie Rich for Richie to sell his mansion on the hill for $1,000 to him, could ol' Doofus claim a reasonable reliance? No, the statute of frauds would prevent any reliance from being reasonable as the formalities were not followed. Here, we have statutes specifically relating to premarital agreements where the formalities were not followed.

Now, if the idiot were to go to the other side of the table, the claim he might make is that the purported marriage is a nullity, it does not exist, it never had and never will. The relationship was meretricious, nothing more. Of course, the idiot would hope no joint income tax returns were filed and/or no citizenship papers were filed and no benefits for married couples from work were asked for as those could lead this down a wholly different path.

But then, that's just an idiot talking.

 

[ecmst12]

That was SOOOOO worth starting a new thread for

 

[rfabiano1]

Actually, here is what Ive been able to find out "Tranquility". While you are right about everything you seem to hinge your whole legal reasoning on putative spouse which requires a good faith belief. I shall turn you to the Ceja case which is set to be heard by the California Supreme Court. The fact is if the court were to take your position then the marriage license requirements in this state would "turn against themselves-- and no one would go through the motions to get married in a legal sense" (By the way I am quoting the filings) One could merely move in with someone and hold themselves out as man and wife, or as you suggest one party could claim they were married for equitable relief. So lets dumb it down for you. A person could move in to a house with an unsuspecting male or female from the opposite sex, claim they had sex and claim that they were involved in a domestic relationship. The courts under your reliance would say well we have no proof to the latter. We must assume they are putative.
The whole rationale fails the test of contract law. Ibid. The fact that absent a real valid contract, one would have to rely on an implied contract that flies in the face of statutory intent or legislation. I think the problem is you are relying on the words "good faith belief" which implies some vague ambiguity. Which is exactly what the court in Ceja is facing. Even so, the putative spouse doctrine was intended originally for wrongful death claims and then latter applied in latter cases because there was nothing to draw from. However, legally speaking it is a slippery slope.
Implied contract or relationship creates a fiduciary responsibility between the parties. Therefore, for purposes of example lets say I were to go into a business and the owner said "you can have my business" after a day where he was really upset. Suppose his rationale was made out of an excited state of mind. Do I then own his business? Now for purposes of argument lets say I am gay and I decide to live with another male. Do I have the same rights, if we were married in another state such as Massachusetts since the law applies to all relationships that can be applied from other states. The law says no. Why because a contract of marriage must be entered into by a man and woman, thus rightfully applying that a marriage must be contractually created legally. Now, the thing is you are right when it comes to applying case law to your argument. The problem is you are in reliance of only a very few rulings that may or may not apply.
Lets go back to the "good faith" reliance. Perhaps "good" is the ultimate word we should really investigate. Good creates an implied construction that both parties or party as the statute expresses are in fact "good". This is ambiguity and up the courts to determine based on the relevant facts. What is good faith? Is it based on a reliance of what a reasonable person would believe or is based on objective reliance. This the court has not addressed. So, when Ceja gets decided we'll talk then.

Further more, if both parties signed a prenuptial agreement with "good faith" why then doesn't your argument remain the same. Putative is to protect the innocent. If one party relies on a contract and the court were to side with your belief then prenuptial agreements would also be void. A party could simply say "well yeah I had a lawyer and he told me all this stuff, but I now don't understand it".

 

[tranquility]

The facts are important. If you read the other thread, I think I mentioned that repeatedly. The argument here was on the concept of another they should claim the marriage is voidable. To do so would be to admit the marriage up front, which the husband would stipulate to before fraud is discussed as to if there was a marriage at all is at issue.

As a matter of law, the premarital agreement is not enforcable if the party against whom enforcement is sought proves he did not execute the agreement voluntarily. It shall be deemed that a premarital agreement was not executed voluntarily unless the court finds:

The explanation of the rights and obligations relinquished shall be memorialized in writing and delivered to the party prior to signing the agreement. The unrepresented party shall, on or before the signing of the premarital agreement, execute a document declaring that he or she received the information required by this paragraph and indicating who provided that information.

The agreement did not have that and there is no evidence of another writing.

Even if said writing WERE there, as to support, as a matter of law:

(c) Any provision in a premarital agreement regarding spousal support, including, but not limited to, a waiver of it, is not enforceable if the party against whom enforcement of the spousal support provision is sought was not represented by independent counsel at the time the agreement containing the provision was signed, or if the provision regarding spousal support is unconscionable at the time of enforcement.

There is no evidence husband was represented.

A party could simply say "well yeah I had a lawyer and he told me all this stuff, but I now don't understand it".

Um, no, they couldn't. See the quoted portions of the statute. One cannot reasonably rely on enforcement when the statute specifically says it is not enforceable.

As to the dumbing down of things for a person as slow as I:

One could merely move in with someone and hold themselves out as man and wife, or as you suggest one party could claim they were married for equitable relief. So lets dumb it down for you. A person could move in to a house with an unsuspecting male or female from the opposite sex, claim they had sex and claim that they were involved in a domestic relationship. The courts under your reliance would say well we have no proof to the latter. We must assume they are putative.

You're missing some facts here partner. From your previous posts, it seems there was paperwork taken out, there was a ceremony of some sort and there were some signatures. It seems the license was not returned and is why there is not a record of the marriage, correct?
True, it was said:

There was an application for Marriage between the two parties however, there is no witness, no soleminization, nada. California has no record of them ever being married.

But, you also said:

Also, both believed they were married but no paper work ever established the defacto marriage.

and:

In fact in further questioning my sister said it was the husband who supposedly went to drop off the application both times, it was also him who hired the officiant which incidentally cant be found.

So, since both parties must be present to submit an application and pull a license, I am uncertain as to if the "application" is the correct usage based on how fuzzy all your legal conclusions were. Now, a license must reflect a marriage within 90 days and it seems like there was some "officiant" hired. Let's pretend a moment a license was pulled, a valid person signed it in a "soleminization" and sister (Actually, person solemnizing.) failed to return it. Would husband be married or a putative spouse?

Heck, there's even a statute in case no record is returned:

425. If no record of the solemnization of a California marriage
previously contracted under this division for that marriage is known
to exist, the parties may purchase a License and Certificate of
Declaration of Marriage from the county clerk in the parties' county
of residence one year or more from the date of the marriage. The
license and certificate shall be returned to the county recorder of
the county in which the license was issued.

So, while you want the facts to be as much to benefit sister as possible, there are tons of explanations as to what happened. Since it is to sister's benefit to have there be no marriage and, as you said, husband's sole purpose was for there to be a valid marriage for citizenship purposes, I'm thinking there is going to be some litigation over what exactly happened. And, unless that litigation shows husband actually did commit fraud or otherwise knew there was no marriage, the premarital agreement is not going to be enforced out of equity when it is not enforceable as a matter of law.

By the way, when you said both parties have unclean hands, what were you referring to? What did sister do wrong?

 

[Bali Hai]

The facts are important. If you read the other thread, I think I mentioned that repeatedly. The argument here was on the concept of another they should claim the marriage is voidable. To do so would be to admit the marriage up front, which the husband would stipulate to before fraud is discussed as to if there was a marriage at all is at issue.

As a matter of law, the premarital agreement is not enforcable if the party against whom enforcement is sought proves he did not execute the agreement voluntarily. It shall be deemed that a premarital agreement was not executed voluntarily unless the court finds:
The agreement did not have that and there is no evidence of another writing.

Even if said writing WERE there, as to support, as a matter of law:
There is no evidence husband was represented.

Um, no, they couldn't. See the quoted portions of the statute. One cannot reasonably rely on enforcement when the statute specifically says it is not enforceable.

As to the dumbing down of things for a person as slow as I:
You're missing some facts here partner. From your previous posts, it seems there was paperwork taken out, there was a ceremony of some sort and there were some signatures. It seems the license was not returned and is why there is not a record of the marriage, correct?
True, it was said:
But, you also said:
and:

So, since both parties must be present to submit an application and pull a license, I am uncertain as to if the "application" is the correct usage based on how fuzzy all your legal conclusions were. Now, a license must reflect a marriage within 90 days and it seems like there was some "officiant" hired. Let's pretend a moment a license was pulled, a valid person signed it in a "soleminization" and sister (Actually, person solemnizing.) failed to return it. Would husband be married or a putative spouse?

Heck, there's even a statute in case no record is returned:


So, while you want the facts to be as much to benefit sister as possible, there are tons of explanations as to what happened. Since it is to sister's benefit to have there be no marriage and, as you said, husband's sole purpose was for there to be a valid marriage for citizenship purposes, I'm thinking there is going to be some litigation over what exactly happened. And, unless that litigation shows husband actually did commit fraud or otherwise knew there was no marriage, the premarital agreement is not going to be enforced out of equity when it is not enforceable as a matter of law.

By the way, when you said both parties have unclean hands, what were you referring to? What did sister do wrong?

Sounds like she did everything wrong.

 

[ecmst12]

Sounds like BOTH parties did a lot of things wrong.

 

[Bali Hai]

Sounds like BOTH parties did a lot of things wrong.

We've only heard one parties version.

 

[ecmst12]

Any way you look at it, neither of them made sure the paperwork was filed correctly, and both of them were representing themselves as married. Even with no other facts, that's a screw up right there. But from what we know, the wife's mistakes were more obvious.

 

[rfabiano1]

Actually, sister didn't even know she wasn't married until she mentioned to me that he lied on his marriage application, so we went down and court has absolutely no record of a marriage between the parties. Sister contended she did the application with husband and it was him that supposedly turned it in. There is no record of that ever happening. As I read the Ceja case today something really sparked an idea. For the most part this is merely me being emotionally involved in the issue. I held other facts out, such as he has currently three criminal charges pending against him one for Aggravated Kidnapping, Infliction of Corporal Injury on Spouse, and Aggravated Battery in the Commission of a felony. She has had a history of being the victim of Domestic Violence by the Suspect/ husband. So this guy isn't exactly a poster child here. The additional facts are that he has had two separate domestic violence claims against him in the state of Michigan that wasn't learned until we file against him a DVTRO and hired a PI. At that point, nothing was filed in dissolution.
The fact is can Douglas V Douglas be applied here? If so how, Douglas were married and not putative spouses. Furthermore, the facts of putative were to protect a good faith belief which goes to state of mind for a subjective purposes. So, I am not trying to prove how smart I am, Tranquility you seem to have a good grip on the law, now offer me an avenue that I haven't thought of. Section 6220 would preclude him from gaining equitable relief due to evidence of domestic violence anyway. I am invested and while I trust the lawyer I still want to make sure all avenues are being thought of.

Like for purposes of example, he is not an American Citizen, therefore if they were to award him equitable relief, does this in fact for a marriage under Federal Immigration authority? I know the answer is no. However, for purposes of argument if he is convicted of any of the myriad of charges against him the obvious thing is he would be deported under federal law, so what do you think will happen in a putative claim. Shall we just wait for feds and immigration courts and file continuances until then or what? For if he is deported he wont be able to come back for 10 years if at all. Therefore, he could not as matter of law participate in the matter.

 

[ecmst12]

Since she did not sponsor him, his immigration status is irrelevent.

 

[rfabiano1]

Since she did not sponsor him, his immigration status is irrelevent.

Yes it is irrelevant to the case, but if he is deported then there is no case. Do you see my point? Even so, how can it be irrelevant if that was a mitigating factor on why he married her. In fact he even states in an email, "I only married you for a green card!"

 

[ecmst12]

Whether he said that or not it doesn't even make sense because being married doesn't get him a green card UNLESS she sponsors him! So if he never told her that he needed a sponsor, then his "ploy" to marry her for a green card was weak at best. I have no idea what the chances of him getting deported are, but I suspect they are a lot smaller then you think.

 

[tranquility]

If the sole purpose he married was to get immigration benefits from the marriage, it makes no sense for him to manipulate things to not be married.

Look, as I wrote in the previous thread, without the facts there is no issue. You simply don't have the facts yet. As when you were looking for a case to answer it all, you are going about this wrong. I don't think this is going to be some deep legal issue driven case, this is going to be a fact driven case. Those facts will be the ones surrounding the events leading to the purported marriage and, maybe, those during the marriage related to finances.

Once those are developed, then it it time for looking at the law. But, the focus on how bad a man he was is not that helpful at this point.

What actually and provably happened in the events surrounding the purported marriage?

Were any legal acts taken after the purported marriage that could amount to fraud by either party if the marriage were known to be illusory?

What lies were actually told to induce marriage that might be considered fraud?

What promises were made by either party related to the purported relationship?

While I suspect when those facts are known, this will be a lot simpler. We don't really even know his claims yet. The whole story will come out about what happened and is why an attorney needs to interact. Why did this come about in the first place? Was it love on the dance floor, or something else? (This is not for you to answer here. This is for sister to answer to her attorney.)

 

[rfabiano1]

If the sole purpose he married was to get immigration benefits from the marriage, it makes no sense for him to manipulate things to not be married.

Look, as I wrote in the previous thread, without the facts there is no issue. You simply don't have the facts yet. As when you were looking for a case to answer it all, you are going about this wrong. I don't think this is going to be some deep legal issue driven case, this is going to be a fact driven case. Those facts will be the ones surrounding the events leading to the purported marriage and, maybe, those during the marriage related to finances.

Once those are developed, then it it time for looking at the law. But, the focus on how bad a man he was is not that helpful at this point.

What actually and provably happened in the events surrounding the purported marriage?

Were any legal acts taken after the purported marriage that could amount to fraud by either party if the marriage were known to be illusory?

What lies were actually told to induce marriage that might be considered fraud?

What promises were made by either party related to the purported relationship?

While I suspect when those facts are known, this will be a lot simpler. We don't really even know his claims yet. The whole story will come out about what happened and is why an attorney needs to interact. Why did this come about in the first place? Was it love on the dance floor, or something else? (This is not for you to answer here. This is for sister to answer to her attorney.)

Thank you that was actually a very helpful response! That was what I was looking for since posting.