## Facts

- Robert Lynn Walton (husband) and Norma Janet Walton (wife) married in 1948 and separated in 1969.
- California’s Family Law Act established a no-fault dissolution ground based on “irreconcilable differences” causing an “irremediable breakdown” of the marriage.
- In 1970, the husband petitioned for dissolution alleging irreconcilable differences under the statute.
- The wife responded seeking legal separation rather than dissolution, but also alleged irreconcilable differences.
- Before trial, the wife moved to dismiss the dissolution petition, asserting the no-fault dissolution provisions were unconstitutional; the trial court denied the motion.
- After trial, the court entered an interlocutory judgment dissolving the marriage and made custody, support, and property orders.
- On appeal, the wife challenged only the constitutionality of dissolving the marriage under the no-fault provisions, not the custody, support, or property rulings.

## Issues

1. Whether statutory dissolution based on “irreconcilable differences” unconstitutionally impairs the obligations of the marriage contract under the federal and state contract clauses.
2. Whether applying the no-fault dissolution provisions to a marriage formed before the statute’s enactment is an unconstitutional retroactive deprivation of vested rights or due process.
3. Whether “irreconcilable differences” and “irremediable breakdown” are unconstitutionally vague, permitting arbitrary or non-uniform application in violation of due process.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the interlocutory judgment dissolving the marriage.
- The court held the no-fault dissolution provisions did not violate the contract clause because marriage is a legal status subject to legislative regulation.
- The court held applying the statute to existing marriages was not an unconstitutional retroactive deprivation of vested rights and did not violate due process.
- The court held the statutory standards were sufficiently definite to satisfy due process and to guide judicial decisionmaking.
- Because the wife challenged only the dissolution’s constitutionality, the court confined its review to those issues and affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- Marriage is a legal status of public concern; the Legislature may modify the incidents of that status, including dissolution grounds, without violating the contract clause.
- A spouse has no vested constitutional right to a fixed set of divorce grounds; changes to dissolution law may be applied to marriages existing at the time of enactment consistent with due process.
- Statutory terms are not void for vagueness when they have an ordinary, common meaning and provide workable standards for adjudication, particularly when applied through a hearing and judicial findings based on evidence.

## Conclusion

The court upheld California’s no-fault dissolution scheme, ruling that dissolving a marriage for irreconcilable differences does not impair contractual obligations, does not unconstitutionally operate retroactively on preexisting marriages, and is not void for vagueness.


In re Marriage of Walton, 28 Cal. App. 3d 108, 104 Cal. Rptr. 472 (Ct. App. 1972)