Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County No. A235352, Marjorie Laird Carter, Judge.
Edward G. Operini for Petitioner and Appellant.
Benjamin P. de Mayo, County Counsel and James C. Harvey, Deputy County Counsel, for Objector and Respondent.
OPINION
FYBEL, J.
INTRODUCTION
Nelsiy Vega appeals from a judgment denying her petition to be determined the putative spouse of decedent, George H. Falkner. Vega and Falkner lived together for a number of years before Falkner became seriously ill and was hospitalized. Four days before Falkner died, a priest performed a marriage ceremony for Vega and Falkner at Falkner’s bedside. No marriage license was obtained before Falkner’s death in October 2005.
In February 2006, the trial court granted Public Administrator John S. Williams’s petition to be appointed administrator of Falkner’s estate. In September 2006, Vega filed a verified petition seeking a distribution of Falkner’s estate on the ground she was his putative spouse. Following a bench trial, the trial court denied Vega’s petition, finding Vega knew her marriage to Falkner was not valid without a marriage license, and that, even if Vega actually believed the marriage was valid, such a belief would have been unreasonable.
We affirm. Substantial evidence showed Vega had been advised by the priest who performed the marriage ceremony that the marriage was invalid without a marriage license and that, in the event Falkner recovered from his illness, the couple needed to obtain a civil marriage license and “redo the marriage.” Vega had firsthand experience with the marriage license requirement, having signed a marriage license when she had been previously married in California. The trial court found Vega’s testimony that she believed she was legally married to Falkner particularly suspect because she did not assert that position until 11 months after Falkner’s death, and then did so only after she had been contacted by a third party interested in his real property. Furthermore, no evidence showed Falkner and Vega had held themselves out as husband and wife, believed they were married before participating in the marriage ceremony, pooled any earnings, acquired joint property, or otherwise established any economic interdependence.
FACTS
Falkner and Vega met in 1995. After about five months, they started going out and eventually the relationship became “exclusive” and “intimate.” Falkner had a home in Cypress and a ranch in Temecula; Vega had a home in Bell Gardens. Vega testified they lived together about five years, either at her home or at his ranch. They never owned property together or had a bank account in both of their names.
According to Vega, she and Falkner discussed getting married “[m]any times.” She said they had planned to get married in Las Vegas in February 2005, followed by a church ceremony in Mexico, but that did not happen. Up until Falkner was hospitalized in August 2005, Vega had never told anyone that she and Falkner were married.
On October 24, 2005, Vega contacted Fr. Samuel Orellana, a priest in residence at the Roman Catholic church located in her neighborhood. She asked him if he would go to the hospital to see her husband because he was ill. Fr. Orellana agreed to go with her. Vega testified she told Fr. Orellana that she and Falkner were married because she was embarrassed that they were not. On the way to the hospital, however, she told Fr. Orellana that they were not married.
At the hospital, Fr. Orellana talked to Falkner. Fr. Orellana asked Falkner and Vega, “would you like me to marry you?” After obtaining their consent, Fr. Orellana conducted a very brief marriage ceremony. Fr. Orellana testified that although Falkner and Vega were married in the eyes of the church, he advised Vega that should Falkner recover, a civil marriage would be necessary, and they would be required to obtain a civil license and “redo” the marriage. Vega’s sister and her husband arrived at the hospital at the end of the ceremony; Vega told them she had just married Falkner. After the marriage ceremony, Fr. Orellana administered the rite for the sick.
Vega testified that it was possible Fr. Orellana told her that she and Falkner would need to obtain a civil marriage license if Falkner recovered, but she could not remember. Vega also testified she did not believe she needed to do anything else to validate her marriage to Falkner and had not had the time to find out. She further testified she did not have any idea that a marriage license was required to get married. Vega admitted, however, that she had been previously married in California to Henry Vega, she had signed the civil license for that marriage, and that marriage had ended in a divorce.
Falkner died on October 28, 2005. Vega met with a representative from the mortuary to make arrangements for the disposition of Falkner’s remains. The representative testified Vega told her that Falkner had never been married and she had been his “friend.” This information was contained in Falkner’s death certificate. When Vega was asked whether she told anyone at the mortuary she was simply Falkner’s friend, she testified, “I don’t know. Possibly. I don’t know anything. I don’t know what she—I just said—I don’t know anything.” When asked whether the characterization of her relationship with Falkner as a friend was a mistake, Vega testified, “I think so.”
Vega was later contacted by Meadowland Real Estate, LLC, which was interested in 108 acres of undeveloped land in Warner Springs that Falkner had owned. Meadowland agreed to pay Vega $5,000 and cover all litigation expenses (including attorney fees) in exchange for a 50 percent interest in whatever Vega obtained from Falkner’s estate through her petition seeking to be declared Falkner’s putative spouse. Vega testified she did not know whether she had been contacted by Meadowlark Real Estate, or whether that entity was paying all of her legal expenses in this case.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In December 2005, the public administrator filed a petition seeking to be declared administrator of Falkner’s estate. The petition stated, inter alia, Falkner died intestate, did not have a spouse, and “is survived by no known next of kin.” In February 2006, the trial court granted the petition.
In June 2006, Vega filed a creditor’s claim against Falkner’s estate in which she claimed a total of $2,978 for amounts paid from September 2005 through November 2005 for funeral expenses, notary fees, clothing and grocery expenses, rest home charges, and water and electric bills. The record does not reflect the disposition of Vega’s creditor’s claim.
In September 2006, Vega filed a verified petition for determination of entitlement to estate distribution pursuant to Probate Code section 11700. In the petition, Vega asserted she was Falkner’s putative spouse based on the marriage ceremony performed by Fr. Orellana. She further contended that for 10 years before his death, she and Falkner “lived as man and wife,” living sometimes in his home in Cypress or on weekends at his ranch.
Following trial, the trial court denied Vega’s petition seeking to be determined Falkner’s putative spouse. The trial court stated in part: “Mr. Falkner and Ms. Vega, according to Ms. Vega’s testimony, lived together in one house or the other for approximately five years, could have been longer than that, the dates weren’t exactly clear, apparently they knew each other for at least ten, and they did discuss marriage, or Ms. Vega says that they had made plans to get married, didn’t, made other plans, somehow they were never married. [¶] A priest was called to Mr. Falkner’s death bed. At his suggestion, according to his testimony, a marriage ceremony was performed, and the priest indicated he felt that it was important to do this to save Mr. Falkner’s soul, to have him in a state of grace. [¶] Additionally, he knew he told Ms. Vega that a license was required for this to be a valid marriage. [¶] There was no license. Mrs. Vega should have known that, and I believe did know that. She’d been married previously. She’d been through the system. She talked about having a civil marriage and then a religious marriage in Mexico. She was aware of the requirements of a legal marriage. [¶] I do not believe that the evidence shows that she even believed she was married. Yes, she told the people who were present at the ceremony, the priest was there, her sister walked in at the end, whoever else were witnesses probably knew, but there’s no evidence that anyone else was ever told that they were married. [¶] Her actions after his death do not indicate that she felt she was married. The testimony of the mortuary [representative] . . . . [¶] . . . [¶] . . . indicated that her normal procedure, even if she has information from the hospital, is to verify everything with the individual in front of her. [¶] Whether or not the term ‘friend’ was used, [Vega’s counsel] says that was a mistake, that she simply copied it off of the form from the hospital, but if she had been married, why was Mr. Falkner indicated as unmarried? She certainly would have given that information. [¶] If in fact she was married, why did she have to use the power of attorney? As a wife she had rights. She didn’t need the power of attorney. And, additionally, why did she do nothing for over a year? [¶] If she’s a spouse and she’s paying bills and she doesn’t have money, one would reasonably expect her to try to get the money from his estate. She clearly knew he had a house. She had a house. He had a house. If she felt she was married and was entitled to the home or anything else, why was nothing done? [¶] So, not only do we have an unreasonable belief that she was legally married, but she acted unreasonably, which only enforced the fact to the court that she really didn’t think she was married. [¶] As far as her credibility, it’s very suspect to the court that she only made a claim after she was contacted by someone who was interested in Mr. Falkner’s property. [¶] That really has nothing to do and is irrelevant to the issue of putative spouse, and not necessary, since the court finds that she was not a putative spouse, based on testimony prior to that, but I think all of that information just adds another layer, and enforces the fact that she really did not believe that she was married legally. [¶] And she wasn’t married legally, and I don’t think there’s any question about that. [¶] The court finds that Nelsiy Vega is not the putative spouse of George H. Falkner, and her petition is denied.”
Judgment was entered against Vega and she appealed.
DISCUSSION
Vega does not dispute that her marriage to Falkner was legally invalid due to their failure to obtain a marriage license. (Estate of DePasse (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 92, 102 [“a license is a mandatory requirement for a valid marriage in California”]; see Fam. Code, § 300 [consent to marriage “must be followed by the issuance of a license and solemnization”]; id., § 306 [“a marriage shall be licensed, solemnized, and authenticated, and the authenticated marriage license shall be returned to the county recorder of the county where the marriage license was issued, as provided in this part”]; id., § 350, subd. (a) [“Before entering a marriage, or declaring a marriage pursuant to Section 425, the parties shall first obtain a marriage license from a county clerk”]; id., § 421 [“Before solemnizing a marriage, the person solemnizing the marriage shall require the presentation of the marriage license”].) Nor does Vega contend she and Falkner ever attempted to obtain a license.
Instead, Vega contends the record established she reasonably believed she was married to Falkner, notwithstanding the lack of a marriage license, and she was therefore entitled to putative spouse status. As discussed in detail post, substantial evidence supported the trial court’s express findings that Vega did not actually believe she was validly married to Falkner and even if she had maintained such a belief, such a belief would have been unreasonable.
When a marriage is found to be invalid due to a legal infirmity, an innocent party, who reasonably believed the marriage was valid, might be entitled to relief under the putative spouse doctrine. (Estate of DePasse, supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at p. 107.) The putative spouse doctrine is codified in Family Code section 2251, subdivision (a) which provides: “If a determination is made that a marriage is void or voidable and the court finds that either party or both parties believed in good faith that the marriage was valid, the court shall: [¶] (1) Declare the party or parties to have the status of a putative spouse. [¶] (2) If the division of property is in issue, divide, in accordance with Division 7 (commencing with Section 2500), that property acquired during the union which would have been community property or quasi-community property if the union had not been void or voidable. This property is known as ‘quasi marital property.’” The putative spouse doctrine is designed “to protect expectations in property acquired through the parties’ joint efforts.” (Estate of DePasse, supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at p. 108.)
A party’s good faith belief for purposes of the putative spouse doctrine is tested by an objective standard. (Estate of DePasse, supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at pp. 107-108.) Thus, a “proper assertion of putative spouse status must rest on facts that would cause a reasonable person to harbor a good faith belief in the existence of a lawful California marriage.” (Id. at p. 108.) Consequently, “a subjective good faith belief in a valid marriage by itself, even when held by a credible and sympathetic party, is not sufficient.” (Id. at p. 107.)
Estate of DePasse, supra, 97 Cal.App.4th 92 is almost directly on point. In that case, Derrel DePasse and Jack Harris had lived together at Harris’s home when DePasse was hospitalized with a terminal illness. (Id. at p. 95.) In July 2000, DePasse and Harris told the hospital chaplain they wished to be married before DePasse died and that there was “no time for them to obtain a marriage license.” (Id. at p. 96.) Harris asserted he and DePasse had planned to be married in a large ceremony within the year. (Ibid.) The chaplain performed a marriage ceremony and DePasse died the following day. (Ibid.)
The trial court concluded Harris was not DePasse’s putative spouse, and the appellate court agreed, stating: “The declarations of both Harris and the chaplain indicate that Harris was aware of the licensing requirement, but elected to go forward without a license because there was ‘no time.’ In addition, although the parties lived together for an undisclosed amount of time prior to the marriage, there is no evidence that they ever held themselves out as husband and wife or that they believed they were married before participating in the ceremony at the hospital. DePasse died the day after the ceremony. There was no evidence of any pooling of earnings, acquisition of joint property, or any economic interdependence to support the conclusion that Harris was a putative spouse.” (Estate of DePasse, supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at p. 108.)
Here, the trial court found Vega knew a marriage license was required for the marriage to be valid. The trial court’s finding is supported by Fr. Orellana’s testimony he told Vega that in the event Falkner recovered from his illness, they would need to obtain a civil marriage license and “redo” the marriage. Vega testified it was “possible” Fr. Orellana had told her she and Falkner needed to obtain a civil marriage license if Falkner recovered, but said she could not remember whether she had been so advised.
Vega also testified she had been married before in California and stated her signature appeared on the marriage license. (See Welch v. State of California (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1374, 1379 [party asserting putative spouse status, having been legally married and divorced twice, “must have been aware of” requirements for valid marriage].) When asked whether she knew that a license was required for a valid marriage Vega responded, “I didn’t know anything about anything” and further stated she did not have time to find out whether a license was required.
Evidence of Vega’s conduct following Falkner’s death raised questions about the credibility of her testimony that she did not know a marriage license was required for a valid marriage. (Estate of DePasse, supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at p. 108 [“Subsequent events are not germane to whether there was a proper effort to create a valid marriage, although later conduct can shed light on whether the person had reason to believe he or she was married”].) A mortuary representative testified she prepared Falkner’s death certificate based on information provided by Vega, which included the statements Falkner had never been married and Vega had been his “friend.”
Although Falkner died in October 2005 and the public administrator filed the petition seeking to be declared administrator of Falkner’s estate in December 2005, Vega did not assert the position she was Falkner’s putative spouse until September 2006. Furthermore, she did not take this position until after she had been contacted by Meadowland Real Estate and was offered $5,000 and full reimbursement of all her litigation expenses and attorney fees in exchange for 50 percent of any recovery she obtained from petitioning the court to be declared Falkner’s putative spouse. Vega’s credibility was further drawn into question when she testified that she did not know whether anyone who worked for Meadowlark Real Estate ever contacted her, or whether Meadowlark Real Estate was paying all of her litigation expenses and attorney fees incurred in bringing the petition.
As in Estate of DePasse, supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at page 108, although Falkner and Vega lived together for an unspecified amount of time prior to the marriage ceremony at the hospital, there was no evidence they held themselves out as husband and wife (other than mentioning the hospital marriage ceremony to bystanders), believed that they were married before participating in the ceremony, pooled any earnings, acquired joint property, or established “any economic interdependence to support the conclusion that [Vega] was a putative spouse.”
In sum, substantial evidence supported the trial court’s finding Vega actually knew that her marriage to Falkner was not legally valid. In any event, under the facts and circumstances of this case, any such actual belief that a valid marriage had taken place would have been unreasonable.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Respondent shall recover costs on appeal.
WE CONCUR: RYLAARSDAM, ACTING P. J., ARONSON, J.