BILL ANALYSIS Ó ----------------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 380| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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.) AB 380 Page 2 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 AB 380 Page 3 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.:NoLocal: No SUPPORT: (Verified6/19/15) Conference of California Bar Associations (source) Association of Certified Family Law Specialists Executive Committee of the Family Law Section of the State Bar OPPOSITION: (Verified6/19/15) 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 AB 380 Page 4 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 ****