## Facts

- Derrel DePasse and Jack Harris cohabited in Harris’s Saratoga, California home.
- DePasse was hospitalized with a terminal illness and possessed substantial assets, including millions in liquid assets and valuable artwork.
- Two days before a hospital ceremony, DePasse executed a will naming her brother, John DePasse, as executor and making dispositions that did not provide for Harris.
- While DePasse remained hospitalized, Harris and DePasse asked a hospital chaplain to perform a marriage ceremony shortly before her death.
- Harris, DePasse, and the chaplain knew a marriage license was required but proceeded without obtaining one due to DePasse’s condition and imminent death.
- DePasse died the day after the ceremony.
- In probate, Harris filed a spousal property petition claiming a one-half interest as surviving spouse and also sought to establish the “fact of marriage” under Health & Safety Code § 103450.
- The executor opposed, arguing there was no valid marriage without a license and that Harris was not a putative spouse; the probate court denied Harris’s petition.

## Issues

1. Whether failure to obtain and issue a marriage license before the ceremony rendered the purported marriage invalid under California law.
2. Whether a petition under Health & Safety Code § 103450 to establish the “fact of marriage” could retroactively cure the absence of a marriage license.
3. Whether Harris qualified as a putative spouse based on an objectively reasonable, good-faith belief that the marriage was valid.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the order denying Harris’s spousal property petition.
- Issuance of a marriage license is a mandatory prerequisite to a valid California marriage; solemnization without an issued license does not create a valid marriage.
- Health & Safety Code § 103450 is not a mechanism to create or validate a marriage that failed to satisfy statutory prerequisites; it cannot cure the absence of an issued license.
- Harris was not a putative spouse because, knowing a license was required, he lacked an objectively reasonable, good-faith belief that he was lawfully married.

## Legal Principles

- A valid California marriage requires compliance with statutory prerequisites, including issuance of a marriage license and solemnization; the license requirement is mandatory, not merely directory.
- Health & Safety Code § 103450 provides a procedure to establish or correct vital records; it does not retroactively validate a marriage that was never legally created.
- Putative spouse status requires both subjective good faith and objective reasonableness; awareness of a clear legal defect (such as knowingly proceeding without a required license) defeats objective reasonableness.

## Conclusion

The court held that an unlicensed ceremony does not create a valid marriage in California, a § 103450 “fact of marriage” petition cannot supply missing statutory requirements, and knowingly bypassing the license requirement prevents a party from claiming putative spouse rights in probate.


Estate of DePasse, 118 Cal. Rptr. 2d 143 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)