In re Marriage of Guo and Sun
California Court of Appeal
186 Cal. App. 4th 1491, 112 Cal. Rptr. 3d 906 (2010)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Xiao Hua Sun (defendant) and Xia Guo (plaintiff) started dating when Sun was still married to his first wife. In January 2001, Sun met with his lawyer to commence divorce proceedings. On February 14, 2001, Sun married Guo. At the time of the marriage, Guo believed that Sun was already divorced. The next day, Sun’s attorney filed a petition to dissolve Sun’s marriage to his first wife. That petition was granted in August 2001. In August 2007, Guo filed a petition to nullify her marriage to Sun on the basis of bigamy. Guo did not seek to be classified as Sun’s putative spouse even though Guo had a good-faith belief in the validity of their marriage until discovering Sun’s bigamy. The trial court granted the judgment of nullity. Subsequently, Sun moved to be declared Guo’s putative spouse. The trial court denied Sun’s motion, holding that he did not qualify as a putative spouse because he did not have an objectively reasonable, good-faith belief that his marriage to Guo was valid. Sun appealed, arguing that even if he did not have a good-faith belief in the marriage’s validity, he was entitled to putative-spouse status based on Guo’s innocent, good-faith belief in the marriage’s validity.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kitching, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.