Marriage of Greenway CA4/3
217 Cal.App.4th 628, 158 Cal. Rptr. 3d 364 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The mental capacity required to dissolve a marriage is a low threshold, analogous to the capacity to marry, and is met when a person is capable of exercising judgment and expressing a consistent wish to end the marriage, even if that person has a cognitive impairment such as dementia.
Facts:
- Lyle Greenway and Joann Greenway were married for 48 years and had what Lyle described as a contentious relationship for the last 30 years.
- In 2009, Lyle moved out of the family home and into an assisted living facility.
- In November 2009, believing Joann was trying to control his healthcare and finances against his will, Lyle granted a durable power of attorney for health care to his son, Kurt, and for financial affairs to his accountant, Thomas Donovan.
- Lyle was a retired dentist suffering from lymphoma and a subsequent knee infection, and was diagnosed by several health professionals as having mild cognitive dementia.
- Joann believed their son Kurt was manipulating Lyle into seeking a separation due to a prior dispute over the sale of Lyle's dental practice.
- Lyle consistently stated, both in declarations and in court testimony, that he wanted to end his marriage because he and Joann did not get along, he did not want her controlling his life, and he saw no possibility of reconciliation.
Procedural Posture:
- Lyle Greenway filed a petition for legal separation against Joann Greenway in the trial court.
- Joann initially responded by also seeking legal separation, but later filed an amended response objecting to the separation and alleging Lyle was mentally incompetent.
- Lyle filed a motion for trial preference based on his age and health, which the trial court granted.
- The parties stipulated to have the matter heard by a retired judge on the sole issue of Lyle's mental capacity, and agreed that Lyle's petition could be amended to one for dissolution if he were found competent.
- After a hearing featuring testimony from the parties, family members, and multiple medical experts, the trial court found Lyle was mentally capable of making a reasoned decision to end his marriage and granted a status-only dissolution.
- Joann Greenway, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the 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 person diagnosed with dementia possess the requisite mental capacity to make a reasoned decision to dissolve their marriage?
Opinions:
Majority - O'Leary, P. J.
Yes, a person diagnosed with dementia possesses the requisite mental capacity to make a reasoned decision to dissolve their marriage. The court established that mental capacity exists on a sliding scale, with the capacity to marry or dissolve a marriage having a low threshold, similar to testamentary capacity, while capacity to contract is higher. Citing Probate Code § 810, the court began with the rebuttable presumption that all persons have capacity, noting that a medical diagnosis of dementia is insufficient by itself to overcome this presumption. The court analogized to In re Marriage of Higgason, which held that a person under a conservatorship can seek dissolution provided they are capable of 'exercising a judgment, and expressing a wish, that the marriage be dissolved.' The court found substantial evidence of Lyle's capacity through his direct testimony, where he was coherent, understood the proceedings, and consistently expressed his desire to end the marriage for personal, subjective reasons. The court also affirmed that under California's no-fault divorce laws, a party's subjective belief that the marriage has irremediably broken down is sufficient evidence of irreconcilable differences, and objective proof is not required.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal standard for mental capacity in dissolution proceedings in California, particularly for the elderly and those with cognitive impairments. It firmly establishes that the capacity to end a marriage is a low legal threshold that prioritizes an individual's personal autonomy and subjective wishes. By decoupling legal capacity from a specific medical diagnosis like dementia, the case provides a crucial precedent for future cases, requiring trial courts to conduct a fact-specific inquiry into the person's actual ability to understand and express their desires, rather than relying on labels. This approach reinforces the intensely personal nature of the decision to divorce and protects the rights of vulnerable adults to make their own life choices.
