PBarry said:
I'm in CA, my "husband" and I were married in Bermuda before my divorce to first husband was final. We both knew it and planned to legalize our marriage in county court at a later date, we never did. 3 years, a house and child later we have separated and I filed for annulment since his attorney has advised him not to accept a divorce due to the invalid marriage. What possible consequences will I face upon the annulment? Can I be prosecuted for bigamy? I have been told that they haven't prosecuted a case in CA in about 25 years but don't know that for sure. Any advice?
My response:
On Jan. 31, 1945, Hamtramck-born Eddie Slovik was executed by firing a squad near the village of Ste-Marie aux Mines for the crime of desertion. Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, supreme allied commander, personally ordered the execution during the closing days of World War II in order to deter other potential deserters.
During World War II, 21,049 American military personel were convicted of desertion, 49 were sentenced to death, but only Pvt. Slovik paid the ultimate price. In fact, he was the only American soldier to be executed for desertion since the American Civil War.
Why did I bring that up ?
Eddie Slovik, as you can read, was a "test case", and no one had been executed for desertion since the American Civil War. You stated that a case of Bigamy hadn't been prosecuted for 25 years in California.
You could be that "test case".
While Bigamy is a ground for annulment in California, from a Civil standpoint, it is also a Criminal act. While bigamy is not an offense punishable by firing squad, it is a sure bet that if the D.A. finds out about this, you could be prosecuted.
California Penal Code section 283.
Bigamy is punishable by a fine not exceeding ten thousand
dollars ($10,000) or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison.
How are you at making big rocks into little rocks ?
However, insofar as your current marriage is concerned, and your current husband's "use" of your bigamy against you, a man who participated in a formal marriage ceremony with a woman when they both knew that she did not have a final divorce from her prior husband, and who continued to live with her as her husband for 15 years, and who had two children with her, was estopped from asserting the invalidity of the marriage, and was required to pay spousal support pendente lite and attorney fees. [In Re Marriage of Recknor (1982, 2nd Dist) 138 Cal App 3d 539, 187 Cal Rptr 887, 34 ALR4th 805]
This decision has been criticized for failing to give due consideration to an essential element of estoppel, namely, the party asserting it must have been ignorant of the true state of the facts. [In re Marriage of Vryonis (1988, 2nd Dist) 202 Cal App 3d 712, 248 Cal Rptr 807]
Good luck.
IAAL
