No. The court decided that a person can't get spousal support just because they thought they were married. The court said it was fair to split the property they accumulated over 27 years, because Marcie acted in 'good faith' and honestly believed she was married. But getting ongoing financial support, or alimony, is different. The law usually requires a real, legal marriage for that. Since their marriage was never valid, and Richard didn't lie to or trick Marcie, the court had no legal reason to make him pay support. If the government wants to allow alimony in these situations, it needs to pass a specific law saying so.

Yes, we agree that the law can be used to split Richard and Marcie's stuff fairly because they both honestly thought they were married. We're saying it's okay to use the rules for married couples to divide things they got while they thought they were married. But no, the law can't be used to make Richard pay Marcie support money. Usually, this kind of law doesn't include support money unless there's a specific rule saying it's okay or if someone was being tricky or mean. In this case, both Richard and Marcie were honest, and there's no rule in Nevada saying support money is okay in this situation. So, we're saying it's fine to split their stuff equally, but it's not okay to make Richard pay Marcie support money.

No. The putative spouse doctrine does not permit an award of spousal support in an annulment proceeding absent statutory authority, fraud, or bad faith from the other party. The court adopts the putative spouse doctrine in Nevada for the purpose of equitable property division, as fairness dictates that a party who enters a marriage in good faith should not be deprived of the economic benefits of the relationship. Substantial evidence supported the trial court's finding that Marcie had a good-faith belief her marriage to Richard was valid, thus qualifying her as a putative spouse. Therefore, the application of community property principles to divide the assets acquired during their 27-year relationship was proper. However, the court distinguishes spousal support, noting it traditionally requires a valid, subsisting marriage. While some states permit alimony in annulment cases, they do so under specific statutory authority which Nevada lacks. Other equitable awards of support have been based on findings of fraud or bad faith, neither of which was present here, as both parties acted in good faith. Without a statutory or equitable basis like fraud, the court has no authority to award spousal support in an annulment.

Yes, the putative spouse doctrine applies to the division of property acquired during the marriage under community property principles. However, no, it does not allow for the award of spousal support in the absence of statutory authority or fraud. We adopt the putative spouse doctrine in Nevada for purposes of property division in annulment proceedings. The doctrine has two elements: (1) a proper marriage ceremony was performed, and (2) one or both of the parties had a good-faith belief that there was no impediment to the marriage and the marriage was valid and proper. Good faith is presumed, and the party asserting lack of good faith has the burden of proving bad faith. In this case, substantial evidence supports the district court's finding that Marcie entered into the marriage in good faith, qualifying her as a putative spouse. We conclude that the application of community property principles to a putative marriage is the better approach to the division of property in such cases. Therefore, we affirm the district court's equal division of the joint property between the parties. However, we reverse the award of spousal support. The putative spouse doctrine did not traditionally provide for an award of spousal support. Extensions of the doctrine have come through statute or findings of fraud and bad faith. As neither is present in this case, we decline to extend the doctrine to permit an award of spousal support when both parties act in good faith. Richard and Marcie's marriage was void, and there was no showing of bad faith or fraud by either party. Absent an equitable basis of bad faith or fraud or a statutory basis, the district court had no authority to grant the spousal support award.

Williams v. Williams

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot