## Facts

- Jessica Vulovic filed for dissolution from her prior husband in 2006 and believed the divorce would become final automatically after six months.
- In March 2011, Jessica and Pedro Aviles participated in a marriage ceremony in Las Vegas, but Jessica’s prior divorce was not yet final.
- In May 2011, during a child-support hearing in the earlier matter, a judge informed Jessica the divorce was not final; she testified she first learned of the defect then.
- Pedro helped Jessica retain counsel, and her prior divorce became final in March 2012.
- After the divorce became final, Jessica and Pedro had additional ceremonies in 2013: a Catholic church ceremony (April) and a large ceremony at a winery (September).
- In 2020, Pedro filed for dissolution and later argued the marriage was void and that Jessica was a knowing bigamist, so she could not receive spousal support or attorney fees.
- The trial court found Jessica was at least a putative spouse and awarded her spousal support and attorney fees.
- For support calculations, the trial court found Pedro’s 2020 income-and-expense declaration was false, rejected his 2021 declaration as unreliable, and used evidence of his true 2020 income.

## Issues

1. Whether Jessica qualified as a putative spouse when she entered the March 2011 ceremony while still legally married, permitting spousal support and attorney-fee awards.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by basing spousal support on Pedro’s 2020 income rather than his claimed 2021 income.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment.
- Substantial evidence supported the finding that Jessica had a good-faith and objectively reasonable belief in March 2011 that she was unmarried, supporting putative-spouse status.
- The trial court acted within its discretion in rejecting Pedro’s later income claims and relying on credible evidence of his true 2020 income after finding false disclosures.

## Legal Principles

- A putative spouse is entitled to marital-type remedies when the party entered a void or voidable marriage with a subjectively held good-faith belief in its validity that is also objectively reasonable under the circumstances.
- A technical bigamy defect does not categorically bar putative-spouse relief; the dispositive question is the party’s good-faith, reasonable belief at the time of the ceremony.
- Putative-spouse determinations are fact intensive; appellate review defers to trial-court credibility findings and upholds the determination if supported by substantial evidence.
- Spousal support orders are reviewed for abuse of discretion; a court may disbelieve income declarations shown to be false and determine income from other credible evidence and reasonable inferences.

## Conclusion

The court upheld putative-spouse spousal support and fee awards where the wife proved a good-faith, reasonable belief she was free to marry at the first ceremony, and it also upheld the support calculation based on credible income evidence after the husband’s financial disclosures were found unreliable.


In re Marriage of Aviles & Vulovic, 79 Cal. App. 5th 694, 294 Cal. Rptr. 3d 836 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022)