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 ****