Ceja v. Rudolph & Sletten, Inc.
158 Cal. Rptr. 3d 21, 302 P.3d 211, 56 Cal. 4th 1113 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The 'good faith belief' required for a person to qualify as a putative spouse under California law is determined by a subjective standard, focusing on the individual's actual, genuine belief in the validity of the marriage, not by an objective 'reasonable person' test.
Facts:
- Robert Ceja was married to Christina Ceja when he met Nancy Ceja (plaintiff) in 1999.
- Robert told Nancy he was married but separated, and in 2001 he filed a petition to dissolve his marriage to Christina.
- In September 2003, while Robert was still legally married to Christina, he and Nancy applied for a marriage license, which falsely stated Robert had zero previous marriages.
- Despite knowing of Robert's prior marriage, Nancy signed an affidavit on the license application attesting that the information was true.
- Nancy and Robert held a wedding ceremony on September 27, 2003.
- In December 2003, a court notice confirming the dissolution of Robert's marriage to Christina was mailed to the home Nancy and Robert shared. The notice clearly stated the divorce was effective December 26, 2003, and warned that remarriage was not permitted before that date.
- In January 2004, Nancy faxed a copy of this dissolution notice to Robert's union to be added to his health insurance.
- On September 19, 2007, Robert was killed in a construction accident.
Procedural Posture:
- Nancy Ceja (plaintiff) filed a wrongful death action against Rudolph & Sletten, Inc. (defendant) in a California trial court.
- Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing plaintiff lacked standing to sue because she was not a putative spouse.
- The trial court, applying an objective 'reasonable person' test, granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant.
- Plaintiff appealed to the California Court of Appeal (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the good faith test for putative spouse status is subjective.
- The Supreme Court of California granted the defendant's petition for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the 'good faith belief' requirement for putative spouse status under California Code of Civil Procedure § 377.60 require an objectively reasonable belief in the validity of the marriage?
Opinions:
Majority - Baxter, J.
No. The good faith inquiry for determining putative spouse status is a subjective one that focuses on the alleged putative spouse’s actual state of mind, not whether a reasonable person would have held that belief. The court reasoned that the ordinary meaning of 'good faith' refers to a subjective state of mind, such as sincerity and honesty of purpose. Tracing the judicially-developed putative spouse doctrine before its codification, the court found that historical precedent consistently focused on whether a belief was 'genuine,' 'bona fide,' or 'honestly held,' taking into account the party's personal background, experience, and the specific circumstances of the marriage. The court expressly disapproved of the objective test established in In re Marriage of Vryonis, arguing it would unfairly disadvantage those most in need of the doctrine's protection, such as individuals who are young, inexperienced, or unsophisticated. While the belief does not need to be objectively reasonable, the court clarified that reasonableness is a relevant factor to be considered among the totality of the circumstances when assessing the genuineness and sincerity of the claimed subjective belief.
Analysis:
This decision resolves a split in California law by definitively rejecting the objective 'reasonable person' test for putative spouse status that had been followed since the 1988 Vryonis case. By adopting a subjective standard, the court makes the doctrine more accessible to claimants whose belief in their marriage's validity might be sincere but not necessarily what a hypothetical reasonable person would conclude. This change lowers the bar for establishing putative spouse status, focusing the legal inquiry on the individual's actual state of mind rather than on a rigid, objective standard. The ruling will likely impact future cases involving inheritance, wrongful death, and property division where a marriage's validity is challenged, requiring trial courts to conduct a more fact-intensive, personalized inquiry into the claimant's credibility and circumstances.
