When is a "Spouse" really a Spouse?

California law is very clear as to when 2 people enter into a valid marriage. 

Family Code § 350(a) states "Before entering a marriage, or declaring a marriage pursuant to Section 425, the parties shall first obtain a marriage license from a county clerk."

I was recently reading an unpublished appellate opinion that dealt with this issue. The facts are rather uncomplicated:

"On a Saturday in October 1996, Chandre' D. Shelton (Shelton) and Kennedy Mitchell (Mitchell) exchanged vows before friends and family at a ceremony held at the First Baptist Church of Beverly Hills in West Hollywood, California. Shelton and Mitchell had not gone to the Los Angeles County Clerk's Office to obtain a marriage license. They had not paid the chapel for any services relating to a marriage license. And the county has no record — public or confidential — that they ever obtained a marriage license.

In 2003, Shelton filed paperwork to adopt a child who was in the midst of juvenile dependency proceedings, and she was informed by the Department of Children and Family Services that there was no record of any marriage license. When Shelton asked the pastor who had officiated the 1996 ceremony about this, he replied simply that "God was the witness." Shelton took no further action at that time to obtain a marriage license, and adopted the child on her own.

In 2008, Shelton sued Mitchell for child support regarding the child she and she alone had adopted. Her claim was rejected, and she was again informed that there was no record of any marriage license. Again, Shelton took no further action regarding the marriage's legal validity.
On January 9, 2017, Mitchell died without a will."

If Ms. Shelton was Mr. Mitchell's spouse, she would have various rights regarding Mr. Mitchell's estate by virtue of being the surviving spouse. For example, she would have a claim to all of Mr. Mitchell's share of the community property and at the very least a portion of his separate property. Furthermore, Ms. Shelton would have the highest priority for being appointed the estate's administrator.

One curious argument offered by Ms. Shelton was "the possibility that the license got lost in the mail." The appellate court was unpersuaded. "Shelton's argument about losing the license in the mail misapprehends the process for creating a legally valid marriage because whether a license is lost in the mail after the ceremony has no bearing on whether a license was obtained in the first place."    

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision that Ms. Shelton was not Mr. Mitchell's spouse because no marriage license was issued by Los Angeles County.

Of note, Ms. Shelton did not raise the issue of a putative spouse in the trial court so she could not raise that issue on appeal. 

In the Matter of Chandre' D. Shelton And Kennedy M. Mitchell, Los Angeles County Superior Court, case # 17STPB00425.

Filing a Timely Claim

A litigant can having a winning case but still lose. How can this be you ask? 

The law, known as the statute of limitations, requires parties to timely file their claims. This law prevents parties from indefinitely waiting to file their claim. By imposing this requirement on litigants, it ensures finality to matters once the requisite amount of time has elapsed. Otherwise a litigant could resurrect an ancient claim that would frustrate the current climate. This brings us to a recent unpublished appellate opinion. Kern County Superior Court case # S-1501-PB-62540, Estate of Catlin.

Gretchen Brown claimed that her mother, Lynda Catlin, promised Ms. Catlin's residence to her upon Ms. Catlin's death. However, a few days before Ms. Catlin passed away, she executed a grant deed which transferred the home to Mark Chagoya as "husband and wife as joint tenants." Catlin was not legally married to Mr. Chagoya, as her prior marriage had not been formally dissolved.
 
The unpublished opinion noted irregularities regarding the execution of the deed:

"The notary who notarized Catlin's signature on the grant deed testified that her sequential journal had been lost or stolen after notarizing Catlin's signature. There was no evidence the notary informed the Secretary of State that the journal had been lost or stolen.

Additionally, a doctor testified that the dosage and type of pain medication provided to Catlin was "substantial," and its effect would depend on her "tolerance." Some evidence indicated Catlin's ability to communicate worsened each day beginning with her hospitalization on January 29, 2011.

There was also evidence that on the day after the grant deed was executed, Chagoya said, "I got everything I want anyway," before leaving the hospital."

The trial court invalidated the deed and imposed a constructive trust on the property for Ms. Brown's benefit. Mr. Chayoga appealed this judgment.

The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, finding that Ms. Brown did not file her constructive trust claim within the statute of limitations. Ms. Brown had 1 year to file her claim because it related to "a claim that arises from a promise or agreement with a decedent to distribution from an estate or trust or under another instrument, whether the promise or agreement was made orally or in writing." Ms. Catlin died on February 4, 2011. Ms. Brown filed her petition on January 28, 2013. 

The opinion concludes with "[w]e only hold that Brown is not entitled to a constructive trust on the property (or the proceeds of its sale) based on her oral agreements with Brothers and Catlin."