In re the Marriage of XIA GUO and XIAO HUA SUN.
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-1698443-1"; urchinTracker(); </script> <html ><br /> <head><br /> <title>In re the Marriage of XIA GUO and XIAO HUA SUN</title><br /> </head><br /> <body><br /> <div><br /> <br/><b >In re the Marriage of XIA GUO and XIAO HUA SUN.</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>Filed 7/28/10<br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b >CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>DIVISION THREE<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=1 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 width=673<br /> ><br /> <tr ><br /> <td width=337 valign=top ><br /> <br/>In re the Marriage of XIA GUO and XIAO HUA SUN.<br /> </td><br /> <td width=336 rowspan=2 valign=top ><br /> <br/> B215595<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> (Los Angeles County<br /> <br/> Super. Ct. No. GD041530)<br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr ><br /> <td width=337 valign=top ><br /> <br/>XIA GUO,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Respondent,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> v.<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>XIAO<br /> HUA SUN,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Appellant.<br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> </table><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> APPEAL<br /> from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles<br /> County, <br><br /> Nori Anne Walla, Judge. Affirmed.<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Law<br /> Office of Robert S. Altagen, Robert S. Altagen and Hanwei Cheng for Appellant.<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Law<br /> Offices of George L. Young and Steven L. Sugars for Respondent.<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>_____________________<br /> <br/><b>INTRODUCTION</b><br /> <br/> The<br /> superior court entered a judgment nullifying the marriage of appellant Xiao Hua<br /> Sun and respondent Xia Guo on the ground that Sun was married to another woman<br /> when he purportedly married Guo. The<br /> court also denied Sun's claim that he was Guo's putative spouse pursuant to<br /> Family Code section 2251.<sup><sup>[1]</sup></sup><b> </b> <br /> Sun appeals the order denying his putative spouse claim.<br /> <br/> A party claiming to be a putative spouse must show, among<br /> other things, that he or she believed in good faith that the marriage was<br /> valid. A determination of good faith is<br /> tested by an objective standard. In this<br /> case, the superior court found that Sun did not have an objectively reasonable<br /> belief that he was married to Guo, and thus was not Guo's putative spouse. <br /> <br/> There are two main issues on appeal. The first is whether there was substantial<br /> evidence supporting the superior court's finding that Sun did not have a good<br /> faith belief that the marriage was valid. <br /> We shall conclude that there was substantial evidence to support that<br /> finding.<br /> <br/> The second issue is whether Sun can claim putative spouse<br /> status based on Guo's alleged good faith belief in the validity of the<br /> marriage, even though Sun did not have such a good faith belief. We hold that Sun is not a putative spouse<br /> under these circumstances. In so<br /> holding, we respectfully disagree with the holding in <i >In re Marriage of Tejeda</i> (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 973 (<i<br /> >Tejeda</i>).<br /> <br/> The order denying Sun's claim for putative spouse status<br /> is affirmed.<br /> <br/><b<br /> >FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND</b><br /> <br/> Sun<br /> and Guo met in North Korea in 1997 or 1998, began a romantic relationship, and<br /> shortly thereafter moved together to Los Angeles.~(RT 318-319; 341)~ Prior to the purported marriage between Sun<br /> and Guo, Guo knew that Sun was married to another woman in Italy.<br /> <br/> In<br /> approximately January 2001, Sun met with his lawyer, Tonnie Cheng, and advised<br /> Cheng that he wanted to divorce his wife in Italy. Sun testified that although Guo was not<br /> present at his initial meeting with Cheng, shortly thereafter Guo met Cheng and<br /> worked with Cheng to arrange for Sun's divorce from his first wife. Guo testified that she did not meet Cheng<br /> until one or two years after Guo<br /> purportedly married Sun.<br /> <br/> On<br /> February 14, 2001--Valentine's<br /> Day--Sun and Guo decided to marry, went to Las Vegas,<br /> and were married that day. Both Sun and<br /> Guo claim that at the time, they believed that Sun was already divorced from<br /> his Italian wife and that Sun and Guo were legally married. Guo's belief that Sun divorced his first wife<br /> prior to February 14, 2001,<br /> was based solely on Sun's representation to her that he had done so. Although both Sun and Guo knew that Sun was<br /> previously married, their marriage license stated that this was Sun's first<br /> marriage.<br /> <br/> On<br /> February 15, 2001, Cheng<br /> filed on behalf of Sun a petition to dissolve Sun's marriage with his Italian<br /> wife. On August 21, 2001, the superior court entered a judgment<br /> dissolving Sun's first marriage.<br /> <br/> On<br /> August 24, 2007, Guo filed<br /> a petition for dissolution of marriage. Guo filed an amended petition on January 7, 2008. In her amended petition, Guo sought to<br /> nullify her marriage with Sun on the ground that Sun entered into a bigamous<br /> marriage.<br /> <br/> On<br /> August 15, 2008, the<br /> superior court entered a judgment of nullity. <br /> The court found that the marriage of Sun and Guo was illegal and void<br /> pursuant to section 2201<sup><sup>[2]</sup></sup> because Sun was married at the time he<br /> purportedly married Guo. This judgment<br /> determined the status of the marriage only, and did not adjudicate the division<br /> of the couple's assets.<br /> <br/> After<br /> the judgment, Sun sought to be declared a putative spouse. The court held a two-day bench trial on the<br /> issue. On December 22, 2008, the court entered a memorandum of<br /> decision. In its memorandum, the court<br /> found that Sun did not have an objectively reasonable good faith belief that<br /> his prior marriage was dissolved prior to his purported marriage with Guo.<br /> <br/> On<br /> February 17, 2009, the<br /> court entered an order denying Sun's request for a finding of putative spouse<br /> status. This appeal followed.<br /> <br/><b<br /> >CONTENTIONS</b><br /> <br/> Sun does not challenge the judgment of annulment on appeal. Rather, he contends that the superior court<br /> erroneously denied his request to be declared a putative spouse. In particular, Sun contends that the superior<br /> court erroneously found that he did not have an objective good faith belief<br /> that a valid marriage existed.<br /> <br/> Sun<br /> further contends that the superior court failed to consider Guo's good faith<br /> belief in the validity of the marriage in determining whether Sun was Guo's<br /> putative spouse. According to Sun, under<br /> Family Code section 2251, he is entitled to putative spouse status even if he<br /> did not have a good faith belief in the validity of the marriage, if Guo had<br /> such a belief.<sup><sup>[3]</sup></sup><br /> <h1 >DISCUSSION</h1><br /> <br/> 1. <i<br /> >The Putative Spouse Doctrine</i><br /> <br/> The putative spouse doctrine is â€