Opinion
SPENCER, P. J.
Introduction
Petitioner Abraham Sasson appeals from an order denying his request for termination of spousal support.
Statement of Facts
An interlocutory judgment dissolving the marriage of petitioner and respondent Leora Sasson was entered on August 22, 1977. The judgment approved a marital settlement agreement, and pursuant thereto ordered petitioner to pay respondent spousal support in the nonmodifiable sum of $350 per month for a period of six years commencing April 15, 1977; and thereafter, in the nonmodifiable sum of $250 per month for a period of two years. Spousal support was deemed to be unequivocally nonmodifiable, but was to terminate upon the occurrence of the first of the following events: “Respondent’s remarriage; Respondent’s death; Petitioner’s death, or March 31, 1985 . ..
For purposes of decision, the trial court assumed to be true the allegations contained in petitioner’s trial brief, to wit: Respondent has been [143]*143cohabiting with Shalom Shahar (Shahar) since approximately November 1977; on November 7, 1978, respondent gave birth to a son, signing the birth certificate as “Lee Shahar” and naming Shahar (who she had represented to be her husband) as the father; respondent consistently uses the name “Shahar”; respondent and Shahar share a joint bank account into which respondent has deposited spousal support checks endorsed “Leora Shahar”; and respondent has represented to family and friends and in her community that she is married to Shahar.
Respondent testified that she has not remarried at any time since her marriage to petitioner; she has not applied for a marriage license with any person other than petitioner; and she has not participated in any form of ceremony relating to marriage with any person other than petitioner.
Contentions
I
Petitioner contends that the trial court erred in defining remarriage for the purposes of spousal support termination in terms of a de jure or putative marriage only.
II
Petitioner further asserts that the trial court erroneously and prejudicially excluded reputation evidence of remarriage.
III
Finally, petitioner avers that the trial court’s ruling that Civil Code section 4801.51 is inapplicable to the issue of spousal support termination constitutes prejudicial error.
[144]*144Discussion
There is no merit to petitioner’s contention that the trial court erred in defining remarriage for the purpose of spousal support termination in terms of a de jure or putative marriage only. The logical thrust of petitioner’s position is that a marital settlement agreement need not define the term “remarriage” in a manner analogous to the statutory definition of marriage; hence, a relationship which falls outside California’s statutory definition of marriage but comes within the term as defined in dictionaries or other jurisdiction should be .considered a remarriage within the meaning of the settlement agreement. Unfortunately, petitioner’s syllogism ignores the nature of the institution of marriage.
Marriage is a civil contract “of so solemn and binding a nature . . . that the consent of the parties alone ... will not constitute marriage, or create the relationship of marriage ...; but one to which the consent of the state is also required.” (Mott v. Mott (1890) 82 Cal. 413, 416 [22 P. 1140, 1142].) Inasmuch as the consent of the state is required to create the relationship of marriage, it follows that the state alone may define the relationship.
California defines marriage as: (1) a contract requiring consent, the issuance of a license, and solemnization (Civ. Code, § 4101); or (2) a contract requiring consent and solemnization (Civ. Code, §§ 4101, 4213); or (3) a contract entered into and valid in another jurisdiction (Civ. Code, § 4104). In addition, California recognizes certain putative relationships; that is, facially valid marriages which in fact evidence a failure of consent or capacity and may be attacked by a circumscribed group of interested parties, but which retain validity in the absence of a challenge. (Civ. Code, § 4425.) Inasmuch as the foregoing provisions establish this state’s policy with respect to marriage, as well as define the relationship, any attempt to broaden the definition would contravene public policy. Accordingly, the trial court was correct in limiting the definition of remarriage to de jure or putative relationships.2
[145]*145II
There is no greater merit to petitioner’s assertion that the trial court erroneously and prejudicially excluded reputation evidence of remarriage. Petitioner relies on Evidence Code section 1314 to establish the relevance of the excluded evidence. While Evidence Code section 1314 does provide that “[e]vidence of reputation in a community concerning the date or fact of ... marriage ... is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule,” it does not necessarily follow that such evidence is relevant.
Evidence Code section 1314 had its origin in former Code of Civil Procedure section 1963, subdivision 303 which created a presumption that “a man and woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage.” In turn, the presumption originated in 1872,4 when this state recognized the validity of marriage based on consent and the assumption of marital duties. (Civ. Code, § 55, enacted Stats. 1872.)5 When Civil Code section 55 was amended in 18956 to require the solemnization of marriages, the courts began to view reputation evidence with greater suspicion. As noted in Hite v. Hite (1899) 124 Cal. 389, 394 [57 P. 227]: “Cohabitation, and holding out to the world that the persons so cohabiting are married, and general reputation, though all admitted, do not of themselves constitute marriage.” Estate of Elliott (1913) 165 Cal. 339, 343 [132 P. 439] followed, holding that evidence of cohabitation and undivided community repute would not prove marriage in the absence of evidence of solemnization.
It is clear that evidence of community repute, standing alone, must be accorded little significance where the solemnization of marriage is required; to do otherwise would be to render the necessity for solemnization a practical nullity. Petitioner neither proffered nor elicited from respondent any evidence of solemnization, but relied entirely on evidence of cohabitation and community repute. In view of the scant relevance of the excluded evidence under the circumstances, we perceive no error in the trial court’s actions.
[146]*146III
Petitioner avers that the trial court’s ruling that Civil Code section 4801.5 is inapplicable to the issue of spousal support termination constitutes prejudicial error. The gist of petitioner’s argument is that, notwithstanding the nonmodifiability of the support provisions, the Legislature intended conduct such as that of respondent to be the equivalent of remarriage, thereby justifying termination of support. We disagree.
As originally enacted in 1974,7
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Opinion
SPENCER, P. J.
Introduction
Petitioner Abraham Sasson appeals from an order denying his request for termination of spousal support.
Statement of Facts
An interlocutory judgment dissolving the marriage of petitioner and respondent Leora Sasson was entered on August 22, 1977. The judgment approved a marital settlement agreement, and pursuant thereto ordered petitioner to pay respondent spousal support in the nonmodifiable sum of $350 per month for a period of six years commencing April 15, 1977; and thereafter, in the nonmodifiable sum of $250 per month for a period of two years. Spousal support was deemed to be unequivocally nonmodifiable, but was to terminate upon the occurrence of the first of the following events: “Respondent’s remarriage; Respondent’s death; Petitioner’s death, or March 31, 1985 . ..
For purposes of decision, the trial court assumed to be true the allegations contained in petitioner’s trial brief, to wit: Respondent has been [143]*143cohabiting with Shalom Shahar (Shahar) since approximately November 1977; on November 7, 1978, respondent gave birth to a son, signing the birth certificate as “Lee Shahar” and naming Shahar (who she had represented to be her husband) as the father; respondent consistently uses the name “Shahar”; respondent and Shahar share a joint bank account into which respondent has deposited spousal support checks endorsed “Leora Shahar”; and respondent has represented to family and friends and in her community that she is married to Shahar.
Respondent testified that she has not remarried at any time since her marriage to petitioner; she has not applied for a marriage license with any person other than petitioner; and she has not participated in any form of ceremony relating to marriage with any person other than petitioner.
Contentions
I
Petitioner contends that the trial court erred in defining remarriage for the purposes of spousal support termination in terms of a de jure or putative marriage only.
II
Petitioner further asserts that the trial court erroneously and prejudicially excluded reputation evidence of remarriage.
III
Finally, petitioner avers that the trial court’s ruling that Civil Code section 4801.51 is inapplicable to the issue of spousal support termination constitutes prejudicial error.
[144]*144Discussion
There is no merit to petitioner’s contention that the trial court erred in defining remarriage for the purpose of spousal support termination in terms of a de jure or putative marriage only. The logical thrust of petitioner’s position is that a marital settlement agreement need not define the term “remarriage” in a manner analogous to the statutory definition of marriage; hence, a relationship which falls outside California’s statutory definition of marriage but comes within the term as defined in dictionaries or other jurisdiction should be .considered a remarriage within the meaning of the settlement agreement. Unfortunately, petitioner’s syllogism ignores the nature of the institution of marriage.
Marriage is a civil contract “of so solemn and binding a nature . . . that the consent of the parties alone ... will not constitute marriage, or create the relationship of marriage ...; but one to which the consent of the state is also required.” (Mott v. Mott (1890) 82 Cal. 413, 416 [22 P. 1140, 1142].) Inasmuch as the consent of the state is required to create the relationship of marriage, it follows that the state alone may define the relationship.
California defines marriage as: (1) a contract requiring consent, the issuance of a license, and solemnization (Civ. Code, § 4101); or (2) a contract requiring consent and solemnization (Civ. Code, §§ 4101, 4213); or (3) a contract entered into and valid in another jurisdiction (Civ. Code, § 4104). In addition, California recognizes certain putative relationships; that is, facially valid marriages which in fact evidence a failure of consent or capacity and may be attacked by a circumscribed group of interested parties, but which retain validity in the absence of a challenge. (Civ. Code, § 4425.) Inasmuch as the foregoing provisions establish this state’s policy with respect to marriage, as well as define the relationship, any attempt to broaden the definition would contravene public policy. Accordingly, the trial court was correct in limiting the definition of remarriage to de jure or putative relationships.2
[145]*145II
There is no greater merit to petitioner’s assertion that the trial court erroneously and prejudicially excluded reputation evidence of remarriage. Petitioner relies on Evidence Code section 1314 to establish the relevance of the excluded evidence. While Evidence Code section 1314 does provide that “[e]vidence of reputation in a community concerning the date or fact of ... marriage ... is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule,” it does not necessarily follow that such evidence is relevant.
Evidence Code section 1314 had its origin in former Code of Civil Procedure section 1963, subdivision 303 which created a presumption that “a man and woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage.” In turn, the presumption originated in 1872,4 when this state recognized the validity of marriage based on consent and the assumption of marital duties. (Civ. Code, § 55, enacted Stats. 1872.)5 When Civil Code section 55 was amended in 18956 to require the solemnization of marriages, the courts began to view reputation evidence with greater suspicion. As noted in Hite v. Hite (1899) 124 Cal. 389, 394 [57 P. 227]: “Cohabitation, and holding out to the world that the persons so cohabiting are married, and general reputation, though all admitted, do not of themselves constitute marriage.” Estate of Elliott (1913) 165 Cal. 339, 343 [132 P. 439] followed, holding that evidence of cohabitation and undivided community repute would not prove marriage in the absence of evidence of solemnization.
It is clear that evidence of community repute, standing alone, must be accorded little significance where the solemnization of marriage is required; to do otherwise would be to render the necessity for solemnization a practical nullity. Petitioner neither proffered nor elicited from respondent any evidence of solemnization, but relied entirely on evidence of cohabitation and community repute. In view of the scant relevance of the excluded evidence under the circumstances, we perceive no error in the trial court’s actions.
[146]*146III
Petitioner avers that the trial court’s ruling that Civil Code section 4801.5 is inapplicable to the issue of spousal support termination constitutes prejudicial error. The gist of petitioner’s argument is that, notwithstanding the nonmodifiability of the support provisions, the Legislature intended conduct such as that of respondent to be the equivalent of remarriage, thereby justifying termination of support. We disagree.
As originally enacted in 1974,7 Civil Code section 4801.5 mandated the revocation of spousal support upon proof that the supported party had been, for 30 days or more, living with a person of the opposite sex and holding himself or herself out as the spouse of the person with whom he or she was living. In its original form, section 4801.5 replaced the discretionary terms of Civil Code section 4801, subdivision (c)8 with mandatory language, thereby evincing a legislative intent to “effect similar treatment between remarrying spouses and ones foregoing the formalities of the marriage contract.” (In re Marriage of Ludwig (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 744, 750 [130 Cal.Rptr. 234].)
However, section 4801.5 was amended in 1976.9 As amended, it creates a rebuttable presumption of decreased need for support if the supported party is cohabiting with a person of the opposite sex, except to the extent that the parties have agreed otherwise in writing; holding oneself out to be the spouse of the cohabitor is not necessary to the definition of cohabitation. Section 4801.5 presently makes no provision for the revocation of spousal support where the supported party does hold himself or herself out as the spouse. Finally, subdivision (c) of section 4801.5 provides: “Nothing in this section shall preclude later modification of support upon proof of change of circumstances.”
Beyond question, the repeal of the mandatory revocation provisions of section 4801.5 and replacement with a rebuttable presumption [147]*147of reduced need manifests a legislative intent that those to whom section 4801.5 formerly applied no longer should be subjected to a consequence as harsh as that imposed for remarriage by Civil Code section 4801, subdivision (b). Instead, the latter version of section 4801.5 constitutes a “legislative declaration of state policy that cohabitation by a supported spouse with a person of the opposite sex [whether or not coupled with a representation that the supported party is the spouse of the cohabitor] is not in and of itself sufficient to revoke or reduce spousal support.” (In re Marriage of Leib (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 629, 635 [145 Cal.Rptr. 763]; italics original.) Hence, whatever may have been the case upon the original enactment of section 4801.5, the Legislature since -has been at pains to avoid equating cohabitation of any degree with remarriage; we may not substitute our judgment for that of the Legislature in contravention of declared public policy.
Further, we cannot agree with petitioner that equity requires a different result. When the parties entered into the marital settlement agreement, section 4801.5 provided ready and beneficial relief from the burden of spousal support in the event respondent entered a relationship of cohabitation which provided her with a substantive means of support. In the face of that remedy, and after expressly providing for the consequences upon remarriage, the parties agreed that spousal support was not to be modifiable upon any ground. (Cf. In re Marriage of Harris (1976) 65 Cal.App.3d 143, 151 [134 Cal.Rptr. 891].)
Moreover, respondent’s conduct is not, as petitioner asserts, analogous to that condemned in In re Marriage of Baragry (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 444 [140 Cal.Rptr. 779]. By eschewing the formality of marriage, respondent has deprived herself of the beneficent protection which the state bestows upon a wife should her partner die or abandon the relationship; what little security respondent may have must derive from another source. (See Marvin v. Marvin (1976) 18 Cal.3d 660, 681 [134 Cal.Rptr. 815, 557 P.2d 106]; approving Beckman v. Mayhew (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 529, 534 [122 Cal.Rptr. 604].) Accordingly, respondent is not “savoring the best of two worlds, and capturing the benefits of both” (In re Marriage of Baragry, supra, 73 Cal.App.3d 444, 449); rather, she chose the benefits of continued spousal support in lieu of the benefits of remarriage. There is nothing in respondent’s exercise of free choice which is inherently repugnant to principles of fairness.
The order is affirmed.