## Facts

- In 1999, Jorge L. Ramirez and Lilia Llamas participated in a religious ceremony in California conducted by an official associated with Jalisco, Mexico, and received an “Acta de Matrimonio,” but they did not obtain a California marriage license.
- In 2001, they learned the 1999 marriage attempt was invalid, including because Lilia’s prior divorce had not been final for 300 days before the ceremony and because the documentation suggested a Mexico marriage that could complicate Jorge’s immigration residency showing.
- The parties remarried in 2001 using a confidential California marriage license.
- Jorge sought U.S. immigration status; after his mother (an initial sponsor) died, Lilia became his sponsor for permanent residence and citizenship.
- Before the 2001 remarriage, Jorge began an affair with Lilia’s sister, Blanca, and intended to continue it after remarrying Lilia.
- Lilia later overheard and recorded a conversation in which Jorge told Blanca he loved her, that they would be together after he obtained money and property from Lilia, and that he married Lilia to obtain permanent residence status.
- In 2004, shortly after Lilia signed a significant immigration document for Jorge, he told her it would be the last one, then soon asked for a divorce and moved out.
- In nullity proceedings, the trial court (after a bifurcated trial) found the 1999 ceremony a void attempt at a Mexican marriage performed in California and declared the 2001 marriage void based on fraud; it also found Lilia to be a putative spouse.
- Jorge appealed the judgment of nullity as to the 2001 marriage and the putative-spouse finding.

## Issues

1. Whether Jorge’s concealment of his preexisting and continuing intent to maintain an extramarital relationship, together with marriage for immigration and property objectives, constituted fraud going to the essence of the marital relationship sufficient to support a judgment of nullity.
2. Whether Lilia qualified as a putative spouse based on a good-faith belief in the validity of the marriage and in Jorge’s marital intent, permitting quasi-marital property treatment despite nullity.
3. Whether Jorge could claim putative-spouse status despite his conduct and intent.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment declaring the 2001 marriage void based on fraud.
- The court held substantial evidence supported that Jorge entered the 2001 marriage while intending to continue an affair with Lilia’s sister and while intending to use the marriage for immigration and property benefits.
- The court affirmed the trial court’s finding that Lilia was a putative spouse and could receive quasi-marital property treatment.
- The court rejected putative-spouse status for Jorge because his knowledge and intent defeated any good-faith belief in a valid marital relationship.

## Legal Principles

- A marriage may be adjudged a nullity for fraud only when the fraud goes to the essence of the marital relationship and vitiates consent.
- Concealment at the time of marriage of a fixed intent not to perform a fundamental marital obligation (including fidelity) can constitute fraud sufficient for annulment; ordinary postmarital infidelity, without premarital fraudulent intent, generally does not.
- The putative spouse doctrine protects a spouse who, in good faith, believed in the validity of the marriage; such a spouse may obtain quasi-marital property treatment even when the marriage is void or voidable.
- Putative-spouse status is denied where the claimant lacked good faith due to knowledge of invalidity or an intent inconsistent with entering a genuine marital relationship.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed annulment of the 2001 marriage because Jorge’s premarital concealment of his plan to continue an affair—paired with marriage for immigration and property ends—constituted fraud that defeated marital consent, and it affirmed Lilia’s putative-spouse status while denying the same status to Jorge due to lack of good faith.


In re Marriage of Ramirez, 165 Cal. App. 4th 751 (Ct. App. 2008)