Mara v. Mara
452 So.2d 329 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person who was previously married but not legally divorced bears the burden of proving they entered into a subsequent marriage with an honest and reasonable belief that the prior marriage was dissolved in order to qualify as a putative spouse entitled to civil effects, such as a share of community property. Being the victim of fraud by an attorney who provided a fake but official-looking divorce decree can satisfy this burden of proving good faith.
Facts:
- Mary Ann Gaudin was married to John P. Buglione when she became romantically involved with Gustave Mara.
- Seeking to marry Mara, Gaudin went with him to an Alabama attorney, K.C. Edwards, to obtain a divorce from Buglione.
- Gaudin paid the attorney $350, which Mara had given her, and received what appeared to be an official divorce decree from the Circuit Court of Winston County, Alabama.
- Believing she was legally divorced, Gaudin married Mara on June 1, 1968.
- In August 1972, while married, Gaudin and Mara acquired a family home.
- In April 1973, Mara attempted to adopt Gaudin's child and discovered from the Alabama court that no record of the divorce proceeding existed.
- Despite learning the divorce was not valid, Gaudin and Mara continued to live together as husband and wife for approximately one more year.
Procedural Posture:
- Gustave Mara filed an action in a trial court to nullify his marriage to Mary Ann Gaudin on the grounds that her previous marriage had not been dissolved.
- A default judgment was entered against Gaudin, and the marriage to Mara was declared null on April 25, 1975.
- On July 12, 1981, Gaudin filed a separate suit in a trial court against Mara, seeking the partition of property acquired during their relationship.
- The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Mara, finding Gaudin was in bad faith and was estopped from claiming putative spouse rights because she failed to raise them in the earlier annulment proceeding.
- Gaudin (plaintiff-appellant) appealed the trial court's decision to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
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 a person who enters into a second marriage in reliance on a fraudulent divorce decree, which they honestly and reasonably believed to be valid at the time, qualify as a 'putative spouse' in good faith and thereby gain rights to community property acquired during that second marriage?
Opinions:
Majority - Augustine, Judge
Yes. A person who enters a second marriage with an honest and reasonable belief that a prior marriage was dissolved is a putative spouse in good faith, even if that belief was based on a fraudulent document. The court reasoned that the trial court erred by applying estoppel and res judicata, as the current partition suit was distinct from the prior annulment action. Reviewing the facts de novo, the court found the central question was Gaudin's good faith at the time of her marriage to Mara. While a person with a prior undissolved marriage bears the burden of proving good faith, Gaudin met this burden. She was an 'unwitting victim of deceit' by the Alabama attorney who was later revealed to be part of a large-scale divorce fraud scheme. The divorce decree appeared authentic, convincing both Gaudin and Mara, and it is unreasonable to assume someone would knowingly pay for a fraudulent document. Therefore, Gaudin's belief was honest and reasonable, entitling her to putative spouse status and a share of the community property.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'good faith' requirement for putative spouse status under Louisiana law, particularly in cases involving a prior, undissolved marriage. It establishes that being the victim of a sophisticated legal fraud can satisfy the burden of proving an honest and reasonable belief that an impediment to marriage did not exist. The ruling protects individuals from losing property rights acquired during a long-term relationship due to deception by a third party, emphasizing that good faith is determined at the inception of the marriage. This precedent provides a pathway for courts to grant equitable relief even when a marriage is legally void from the beginning.
