## Facts

- Lena Velez and Krista Smith began a same-sex relationship in 1989 and lived together for many years.
- They registered as domestic partners with the City and County of San Francisco in 1994 and 1996 and participated in a public commitment ceremony.
- They acquired and shared interests in real and personal property, maintained joint bank accounts, and shared household expenses.
- After Velez became disabled, Smith listed Velez as a dependent for a period and Velez received benefits connected to Smith’s employment.
- The couple never registered as domestic partners with the State of California.
- Smith filed a notice ending the San Francisco domestic partnership in November 2004.
- Velez filed a superior court petition (and later an amended petition) seeking dissolution of domestic partnership and related relief, including property division and fees.
- Smith moved to strike the amended petition on the ground that the family court lacked jurisdiction absent a valid state-registered domestic partnership.
- The trial court granted the motion to strike and entered a judgment of dismissal, directing that any non-dissolution claims be pursued in a separate civil action.

## Issues

1. Whether a couple that never registered as domestic partners with the State of California may invoke family court jurisdiction to dissolve a domestic partnership under California’s domestic partnership statutes.
2. Whether statutory transition provisions permitted dissolution treatment based on a long-term relationship and local (San Francisco) registrations rather than state registration.
3. Whether a “putative domestic partner” theory could supply family-law dissolution jurisdiction despite noncompliance with state registration requirements.
4. Whether the trial court erred by resolving the motion to strike without live testimony and by declining leave to amend to add civil theories within the dissolution proceeding.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of dismissal.
- State registration is a prerequisite to dissolution under the domestic partnership statutes; the absence of state registration barred family-law dissolution jurisdiction.
- Local registrations and a commitment ceremony did not create a domestic partnership status recognized for statutory dissolution.
- The court declined to recognize a putative domestic partner doctrine that would substitute for statutory registration and confer dissolution jurisdiction.
- Property and contract-based claims arising from the relationship could be pursued only in a separate civil action, not appended to a dissolution petition lacking a qualifying domestic partnership.
- The trial court acted within its authority in deciding the motion to strike on the record because the dispositive facts were not materially disputed, and it did not abuse its discretion in denying further amendment.

## Legal Principles

- California domestic partnership rights and dissolution remedies depend on compliance with state statutory registration requirements.
- A local government domestic partnership registration or private commitment ceremony does not establish a state-recognized domestic partnership for purposes of family court dissolution jurisdiction.
- Courts will not use equitable doctrines to bypass explicit statutory conditions for creation of a legal status and access to family-law dissolution procedures.
- When dissolution jurisdiction is absent, claims concerning property division or contractual/equitable relief between unmarried partners must be brought, if at all, in a separate civil proceeding.

## Conclusion

Because the parties never registered as domestic partners with the State of California, the family court lacked jurisdiction to dissolve their relationship under the domestic partnership statutes, and the dismissal was affirmed without prejudice to pursuing any available property or contract claims in a separate civil action.


Velez v. Smith, 142 Cal. App. 4th 1154 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)