Possible bigamy

[N2johnlennon]

My wife and I are sepparated and I wish to get a divorce. During a fight she revealed to me that she was still married to her previous husband. She later recanted that story. What I need to know is If she was married in california and never divorced how can I, from oklahoma, find out for sure. And what do I do if she is still married to that other guy.

 

[JETX]

Do you know what county she might have been divorced in?? If so, you can call that county and ask.

If you don't know the county, you can have a statewide search done for a fee at:
http://www.divorcesearch.com/

And if you find that she is still married, be VERY glad. That means that her claims to the 'marital' assets will probably not stand.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

And if you find that she is still married, be VERY glad. That means that her claims to the 'marital' assets will probably not stand.

My response:

Well, not exactly, Steve - - at least insofar as California is concerned.

She may, in fact, be able to claim "Putative Spouse" status even though her second marriage may be bigamous, and still be able to take under the Community Property statutes.

During the pendency of a proceeding for nullity of marriage or upon judgment of nullity, the court may order a party to pay for the support of the other party in the same manner as if the marriage had not been void or voidable if the supported party is found to be a putative spouse, that is, a party who believed in good faith that the marriage was valid. [Fam C §§2252(a)(1), 2254]

Furthermore, a support award may be upheld even in the absence of putative spouse status where the facts justify estopping the supporting party from denying the validity of the marriage.

Thus a "husband" was estopped to deny the validity of the marriage, where he went through a formal marriage ceremony with his partner although knowing that her divorce was not final, continued to live with her as her husband for 15 years, during which time they had two children, and waited almost 15 years before asserting the invalidity of the marriage. [In Re Marriage of Recknor (1982, 2nd Dist) 138 Cal App 3d 539, 187 Cal Rptr 887, 34 ALR4th 805]

Even though our writer might claim that he "didn't know" that his marriage was invalid due to bigamy, he is presumed to have known after a reasonable amount of time has transpired from the date of the second marriage; i.e., our writer cannot put his head in the sand and claim ignorance - - especially when there was sufficient time for him to check the status of her first marriage. He could have asked to see her divorce Decree, or checked on the status long ago if she claimed that she "couldn't find her Decree". Ergo, she might prevail as a Putative Spouse and still claim her half of the marital assets.

However, and like Steve mentioned, I would still encourage our writer to check her marital or divorce status. That's because there's a Criminal case to be filed for the crime of Bigamy. Now, if our writer locates a marriage certificate from the first marriage, and is unable to locate a Decree of divorce, THAT, coupled with a threat to report her to the D.A.'s office for prosecution, might be just enough for her to "sign away" any and all potential rights to Community Property she might claim, or would otherwise have a right to obtain.

Why take a chance on sharing the proceeds of the sale of the family home, for example, when there's the possibility of doing jail time - - for a long time ? I'd give up the home in exchange for my freedom any day of the week.

Good luck to the both of you. But, sounds to me like she's really going to need it.

IAAL

 

[JETX]

Ah, yes, the vagaries of California law. Only California can find ways to legitimize an illegal act!!!

However, I do take exception to one suggestion made by IAAL. That is "Now, if our writer locates a marriage certificate from the first marriage, and is unable to locate a Decree of divorce, THAT, coupled with a threat to report her to the D.A.'s office for prosecution, might be just enough for her to "sign away" any and all potential rights to Community Property she might claim, or would otherwise have a right to obtain."

In most states, this 'agreement' could be found unenforcable since it was done by 'extortion', forcing to enter a contract with the threat to report an illegal act. The courts would not look kindly on this agreement if this threat were to come out.

In fact, just the other day on one of the Judge shows (it was the one with the black, smartalecky judge), he was hearing a case where the Plaintiff had forced her 'ex' into entering an agreement to buy her a car, or she would turn him in for not paying his childsupport. The judge threw her case out and said he was going to send her testimony to the local DA for consideration of prosecution for extortion. And we ALL know how accurate and professional these TV judges are!! Hell, I get some of my best legal edumacation from Judge Mills!!! "GET IT ON!!!"

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

Well, Steve, it all depends upon the attorney, the strategy that is employed, and how it's said. For my clients, I would never be so "blatent" in my words. But, I would make it known in such a manner that opposing counsel would "get the drift".

There's more than one way to skin a cat.

IAAL

 

[Grandma B]

I would never be so "blatent" in my words. IAAL

"blatant"--Gotcha!

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

Hey, don't shoot me !

It was EPS, remember ? She's the one who fired the first shot. I was only agreeing that she had a right to make a comment about someone's spelling.

IAAL

 

[Grandma B]

My response:

Hey, don't shoot me !

It was EPS, remember ? She's the one who fired the first shot. I was only agreeing that she had a right to make a comment about someone's spelling.

IAAL

Man, I'd never shoot YOU, and I promise not to pick on you any further. You keep the boards lively--and honest. Besides, no one has the time to bring to light all the spelling and grammar errors on these boards. That would be more than a full-time job. I am not in the market for one of those.