BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2700
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 2700 (Ma)
As Amended April 5, 2010
Majority vote
JUDICIARY 7-3 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Feuer, Brownley, Hill, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Ammiano, |
| |Huffman, Skinner, | |Bradford, |
| |Monning, Nava | |Charles Calderon, Coto, |
| | | |Davis, Nava, Hall, |
| | | |Skinner, Solorio, |
| | | |Torlakson, Torrico |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Tran, Hagman, Knight |Nays:|Conway, Harkey, Miller, |
| | | |Nielsen, Norby |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Permits couples that are both married and registered
domestic partners to dissolve both unions in a single court
proceeding. Specifically, this bill :
1)Permits parties to a registered domestic partnership who are
also married to each other to petition the court to dissolve
both their domestic partnership and their marriage in a single
proceeding.
2)Requires the Judicial Council to develop a form for the
proceeding in 1) above.
3)Clarifies that, in a dissolution proceeding, courts may
dissolve out-of-state, same-sex marriages recognized in
California.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that the dissolution or nullity of a domestic
partnership and legal separation of domestic partners must
follow the same procedures, and the partners must possess the
same rights, protections and benefits and be subject to the
same responsibilities, obligations and duties, as apply to the
dissolution or nullity of a marriage or legal separation of
AB 2700
Page 2
spouses, except as provided.
2)Allows for a simplified process to terminate a registered
domestic partnership if various conditions are met, including
that the union lasted not more than five years and there are
no children of the relationship.
3)Allows for a simplified process to dissolve a marriage if
various conditions are met, including that the union lasted
not more than five years and there are no children of the
relationship.
4)Permits the court, in a proceeding for dissolution or nullity
of a marriage or for legal separation of the parties, to
determine, among other things, the status of the marriage.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, minor absorbable one-time costs for the Judicial
Council to develop the required form, and potential minor court
savings from consolidating dissolution proceedings.
COMMENTS : This clean-up legislation, sponsored by Equality
California and the Conference of Delegates of the State Bar,
seeks to correct a procedural problem for married couples in
California who are also registered domestic partners and to
clarify that same-sex, married couples who wed out-of-state, but
are recognized in California, may dissolve their unions in
California.
Many same-sex couples registered as domestic partners in
California when they had no option of marrying. When same-sex
marriages were allowed in California, between the California
Supreme Court decision in In re Marriage Cases (2008) 43 Cal.4th
757 and before passage of Proposition 8 in November 2009, some
of these couples later married. Those marriages remain valid
even after passage of Proposition 8 (Strauss v. Horton (2009) 46
Cal.4th 364, 473-74). As a result, some same-sex couples are
both married and registered domestic partners.
As with all couples, some of these unions will not survive and
the parties will seek to dissolve them. Under current law,
these couples must both terminate their domestic partnership and
dissolve their marriage, which require identical court
proceedings. However, while the same law governs the two
AB 2700
Page 3
proceedings, existing law requires that they be accomplished in
two separate proceedings. Requiring two separate - and
identical - proceedings significantly increases costs and time
for both the parties and the courts, without any apparent
benefit. This bill allows these couples to dissolve both their
marriage and their domestic partnership in a single proceeding,
saving time and resources for both the parties and the courts.
Additionally, since most family law litigants in California are
unrepresented by counsel, most same-sex couples terminating
their unions are likely to be doing so without the assistance of
counsel. Without legal counsel, these couples may not realize
that they need to terminate their marriage and their domestic
partnership in separate proceedings, and it is likely that at
least some couples will not dissolve their marriages. This in
turn could lead to significant legal complications in the
future, particularly if one party decides to remarry, without
realizing that he or she may still be married. By letting
couples dissolve both unions in a single proceeding, this bill
will avoid those unnecessary complications.
This bill also clarifies a provision in last year's SB 54,
(Leno), Chapter 625, Statutes of 2009. That bill provided that,
consistent with the constitutional directive of the Supreme
Court in In re Marriage Cases and Strauss v. Horton, same-sex
couples who married outside of California after passage of
Proposition 8 are provided the same rights and obligations as
are granted to spouses in California, with the sole exception of
the designation of "marriage." Some judges suggested the law
should be clearer to ensure there are no misapplications
preventing these unions from properly dissolving. This bill
simply clarifies that, while these couples cannot use the
designation of "marriage," courts may appropriately determine
the status of the marriages of these out-of-state, same-sex
couples in a dissolution proceeding.
Analysis Prepared by : Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916)
319-2334
FN: 0003970