Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 06-10-2022

Case Style:

In re the Marriage of PEDRO AVILES and JESSICA VULOVIC.

Case Number: E076743

Judge: Ramirez

Court: California Court of Appeals, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two on appeal from the Superior County, Riverside County

Plaintiff's Attorney:




Click Here to Watch How To Find A Lawyer by Kent Morlan

Click Here For The Best Riverside Family Law Lawyer Directory


Defendant's Attorney:

Description: Riverside, California family law lawyers represented the parties seeking a divorce.

In October 2006, Jessica filed a petition for a divorce from her then-husband,
Alexander Vulovic. She believed that she would be divorced automatically six months
after filing the petition.

In October 2007, Pedro and Jessica began dating. They were married in Las
Vegas in March 2011.

In May 2011, when Jessica appeared, in pro. per., at a child support hearing in her
divorce proceeding, the judge told her that her divorce was not final. After that, Pedro
helped her retain an attorney; however, as far as he knew, the attorney’s role was to
obtain child custody and child support. Pedro never went to any of the hearings in
Jessica’s divorce case, because she told him “if [he] showed up, her ex-husband would
flip out . . . .” In March 2012, Jessica’s divorce became final.

In April 2013, at Pedro’s request, he and Jessica went through a marriage
ceremony in a Catholic church. To be eligible, Jessica went to church every week for 16
months and attended adult confirmation classes for 13 months. Pedro testified that they
did not receive “a California wedding certificate.” Jessica testified that they received a
marriage certificate “through the [c]hurch” rather than through the county.

In September 2013, Pedro and Jessica went through another marriage ceremony at
a winery, in front of 200 guests. They wanted to “celebrat[e] [the] marriage with all the
family members.” They did not receive a marriage certificate.

In January 2020, the spouses separated and Pedro filed the present divorce
proceeding. In April 2020, he found a petition to annul Jessica’s marriage to Mr.
Vulovic, signed by her and dated in December 2012 but never filed. On further
investigation, he learned for the first time that she was still married when she first
married him.

married, Jessica’s divorce from a former husband was not yet final. She later testified,
however, that she was unaware of this; she discovered it only in May 2011, and she
obtained a final judgment of divorce in March 2012. In April 2013, Pedro and Jessica
went through a second marriage ceremony; in September 2013, they went through a third
marriage ceremony.

Alas, three weddings was not the charm; the marriage did not last. In 2020, Pedro
filed the present divorce proceeding. The trial court found that Jessica was at least a
putative spouse; on that basis, it awarded her spousal support and attorney fees.
Pedro contends that, as a matter of law, Jessica did not qualify as a putative
spouse. We will hold that Jessica qualified as a putative spouse because she adequately
showed that, at the time of the original marriage, she had a good faith belief that she was
unmarried.

Pedro also contends that the trial court erred by basing spousal support on his 2020
income rather than his 2021 income. We will hold that, because Pedro filed a false
income and expense declaration for 2020, the trial court could reasonably disregard his
income and expense declaration for 2021 and rely instead on what Jessica showed was
his true 2020 income.

* * *

A bigamous marriage is invalid. (Fam. Code, § 2201, subd. (a)(1).) “Parties to an
‘invalid’ marriage generally do not have the rights and obligations granted to and imposed upon spouses under the Family Code. But there is an important exception: A
party to an invalid marriage who has ‘putative’ spouse status may be entitled to property,
support and attorney fees/costs rights similar to those attaching upon the dissolution of a
valid marriage. [Citations.]” (Hogoboom & King, Cal. Practice Guide: Family Law (The
Rutter Group 2021) ¶ 19:40; see also Fam. Code, §§ 2251, 2254, 2255.)

A putative spouse is one who “believed in good faith that the marriage was valid
. . . .” (Fam. Code, § 2251, subd. (a); see also Code Civ. Proc., § 377.60, subd. (b)(2).)
“The good faith inquiry is a subjective one that focuses on the actual state of mind of the
alleged putative spouse. . . . [T]here is no requirement that the claimed belief be
objectively reasonable . . . .” (Ceja v. Rudolph & Sletten, Inc. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 1113,
1128.)
“We revi

Outcome: The orders appealed from are affirmed. Jessica is awarded costs on appeal against
Pedro.
C

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: