Estate of Derrel Depasse v. Harris
118 Cal. Rptr. 2d 143, 97 Cal. App. 4th 92, 2002 Daily Journal DAR 3343 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In California, obtaining a marriage license is a mandatory prerequisite for a valid marriage, and a subsequent petition to establish the fact of marriage does not cure this defect. Furthermore, a party cannot claim putative spouse status without an objectively reasonable, good faith belief that the marriage was lawful, which is negated by knowledge of the absence of a required license.
Facts:
- Derrel DePasse was hospitalized at Stanford University Medical Center with a terminal illness.
- Prior to her hospitalization, DePasse had resided with Jack Harris in his home in Saratoga, California.
- DePasse owned a sizable estate, including over $4.5 million in liquid assets and 50 pieces of artwork.
- On July 5, 2000, while in the hospital, DePasse executed a holographic will appointing her brother, John DePasse, executor of her estate and instructing him to donate her artwork and establish endowment funds, without mentioning Harris.
- On July 7, 2000, DePasse and Harris asked the hospital chaplain to perform a marriage ceremony for them because DePasse wanted to be married before she died and they believed there was no time to obtain a marriage license.
- The chaplain performed the marriage ceremony at Stanford University Medical Center, despite knowing the parties had not obtained a marriage license.
- DePasse died the day after the marriage ceremony.
Procedural Posture:
- On July 25, 2000, John DePasse filed a petition for probate and letters testamentary in the trial court (probate court) in Santa Clara County.
- On January 4, 2001, Jack Harris filed an ex parte petition for an order establishing the fact, time, and place of marriage pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 103450, as a separate action in another department of the court, without serving any parties to the probate action.
- On January 16, 2001, the court signed a form order, prepared by Harris, establishing the fact of the marriage.
- On the same day, January 16, 2001, the executor filed a petition in the probate action to establish the estate’s claim of ownership to DePasse’s property and for an order directing its transfer to the estate.
- On January 22, 2001, Harris filed a petition to determine ownership of the estate property and his spousal intestate rights, and a spousal property petition claiming one-half of DePasse’s estate as her surviving spouse.
- On March 6, 2001, Harris filed an amended petition, claiming additional property as gifts and continuing his claim for one-half of the estate.
- On March 27, 2001, the executor objected to Harris’s spousal property petition and amended petition, arguing that Harris was not legally married to DePasse due to the lack of a marriage license.
- A hearing was held on Harris’s spousal property petition on March 29, 2001, where the issue of the legality of the marriage was argued.
- On April 27, 2001, the trial court issued an order denying Harris’s spousal property petition, finding that a marriage license was a prerequisite, that the Section 103450 petition did not validate the marriage, and that Harris was not a putative spouse.
- Harris appealed the trial court’s order denying his spousal property petition to the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Sixth Appellate District.
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 failure to obtain a marriage license before a ceremony invalidate a marriage in California, and can a party subsequently claim putative spouse status despite knowing the license was absent?
Opinions:
Majority - BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN, Acting P. J.
Yes, the failure to obtain a marriage license invalidates a marriage in California, and Jack Harris cannot claim putative spouse status because he lacked an objectively reasonable, good faith belief that he was lawfully married. California statutes governing marriage, including Family Code sections 300, 306, 350, and 421, mandate the issuance of a marriage license as a prerequisite. Section 12 of the Family Code explicitly states that the use of the term "shall" indicates a mandatory action. Consent alone is insufficient for marriage; it "must be followed by the issuance of a license and solemnization." California has abolished common law marriages, reinforcing the need for statutory compliance. The court rejected Harris's argument that a petition under Health and Safety Code section 103450 to establish the fact of marriage cured the defect, clarifying that this procedure only creates a statistical record of a marriage, not its legal validity, and is intended to cure a failure to register, not a failure to obtain a license. While a ceremonial marriage is presumed valid (Evidence Code section 663), this presumption was rebutted by the undisputed fact that no license was obtained. Finally, the court held that Harris was not a putative spouse because he lacked an objectively reasonable, good faith belief in the validity of the marriage. Both Harris and the chaplain were aware of the licensing requirement but consciously decided to proceed without one due to time constraints, which negated an objectively reasonable good faith belief. The court found no evidence of the couple holding themselves out as married or having economic interdependence prior to the ceremony to support a putative spouse claim.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the legislative intent that marriage in California is a strictly statutory institution, requiring adherence to all prescribed formalities, particularly the mandatory marriage license. It clarifies that a failure to obtain a license is a fatal defect, not a curable one, emphasizing the state's significant interest in regulating marriage. The ruling also tightens the "good faith" standard for putative spouse status, requiring an objectively reasonable belief rather than mere subjective sincerity, thereby making it more difficult for individuals who knowingly bypass legal requirements to claim such status. This decision provides a clear bright-line rule for the validity of ceremonial marriages in California and underscores the importance of procedural compliance.
