Marriage G.C. v. R.W.
232 Cal. Rptr. 3d 484, 23 Cal. App. 5th 1 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For an out-of-state, non-marital legal union to be recognized as a valid domestic partnership in California for dissolution purposes under Family Code § 299.2, it must be "substantially equivalent" in its substantive rights and obligations to a California domestic partnership. A union that confers only limited rights without comprehensive, quasi-marital responsibilities regarding property and support does not meet this standard.
Facts:
- In 2002, R.W. and G.C. purchased a home together in New Jersey.
- In August 2004, the couple entered into a domestic partnership under New Jersey law, primarily to secure rights for medical emergencies and employer-provided benefits.
- The New Jersey domestic partnership law at the time provided limited rights, such as hospital visitation, and explicitly stated that courts were not required to equitably distribute property upon dissolution.
- The couple moved from New Jersey to New York in 2006.
- On February 6, 2009, R.W. and G.C. married in Connecticut.
- In 2011, the couple purchased a home in California and moved there the same year.
Procedural Posture:
- G.C. filed a form petition for dissolution of marriage in a California superior court (trial court).
- In his petition, G.C. listed the date of marriage as February 2009.
- R.W. filed a response, which he later amended, seeking dissolution of the 2004 New Jersey domestic partnership and asserting it was the operative date of union.
- After a court trial, the trial court issued a statement of decision finding that the 2004 New Jersey domestic partnership was not "substantially equivalent" to a California domestic partnership.
- The trial court concluded that the proper date of marriage for dissolution purposes was February 6, 2009, and entered a judgment accordingly.
- R.W. (appellant) appealed the judgment to the California Court of Appeal.
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 2004 New Jersey domestic partnership, which provides limited rights and does not require equitable property distribution upon termination, qualify as "substantially equivalent" to a California domestic partnership under Family Code § 299.2, thereby establishing the operative date of union for a California dissolution proceeding?
Opinions:
Majority - Aaron, J.
No. A 2004 New Jersey domestic partnership is not "substantially equivalent" to a California domestic partnership under Family Code § 299.2. The court interpreted the statutory phrase "substantially equivalent" to require that the out-of-state union be substantively comparable in the rights and obligations it confers to a domestic partnership formed under California's Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act. California's Act grants domestic partners the same rights and responsibilities as spouses, including community property rights. In stark contrast, the New Jersey domestic partnership provided only a few select rights and explicitly excluded any requirement for equitable property distribution upon dissolution. Because the New Jersey union lacked the core quasi-marital financial rights and obligations inherent in a California domestic partnership, it cannot be considered substantially equivalent, and thus the trial court correctly determined the date of union was the 2009 date of marriage.
Analysis:
This decision provides the first judicial interpretation of the "substantially equivalent" standard in California Family Code § 299.2, establishing a substantive, rights-based test for recognizing out-of-state non-marital unions. The ruling clarifies that for a union to be treated like a California domestic partnership (and thus a marriage for dissolution purposes), it must confer a comprehensive, marriage-like bundle of rights and obligations, not just a limited set of benefits. This precedent will guide California courts in assessing various civil unions and domestic partnerships from other jurisdictions, directly impacting property division, support, and the recognized length of the relationship in future dissolution cases.
