WILLIAMS VS. WILLIAMS (DIVORCE PROPERTY & ALIMONY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

This case of first impression adopted the putative spouse doctrine in Nevada annulment proceedings and defined its scope for property division and spousal support. Divorce and annulment decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion, and rulings supported by substantial evidence will not be disturbed. 120 Nev. at 566-67, 97 P.3d at 1129. A marriage is void where a party has a living former spouse. NRS 125.290(2). Annulment is the proper proceeding to dissolve a void marriage and resolve related issues. The court adopted the putative spouse doctrine, under which the civil effects of a legal marriage flow to a party who participated in a marriage ceremony in good faith. The elements are (1) a proper marriage ceremony and (2) a good-faith belief - an honest and reasonable belief - that there was no impediment and the marriage was valid; good faith is presumed and the party asserting bad faith bears the burden. 120 Nev. at 565-66, 97 P.3d at 1128-29. Unconfirmed rumors do not vitiate good faith, but reliable information of an impediment triggers a duty to investigate. The court held substantial evidence supported the finding that Marcie relied in good faith on her former husband's representation of divorce, so she qualified as a putative spouse. Property division. The court held community property principles apply by analogy to divide property acquired during a putative marriage, following Sanguinetti v. Sanguinetti, and affirmed the district court's equal division of the jointly held property. 120 Nev. at 567-68, 97 P.3d at 1129-30. Spousal support. The court held the putative spouse doctrine does not permit an award of spousal support absent statutory authority, fraud, or bad faith. 120 Nev. at 568-70, 97 P.3d at 1130-31. Nevada's annulment statutes do not provide for alimony, and the court distinguished cases awarding equitable alimony (Sanguinetti, Kindle v. Kindle) as resting on fraud or bad conduct not present here, where both parties acted in good faith. Absent an equitable or statutory basis, the district court had no authority to award spousal support, and the court reversed that portion of the judgment.

In plain language

Richard and Marcie Williams went through a marriage ceremony in 1973 and lived as husband and wife for 27 years. But Marcie had never actually divorced her prior husband, so the marriage was legally void. Marcie testified she believed she was divorced because her former husband told her so. When Richard discovered the truth, he filed for an annulment. Marcie asked for half of the couple's property and for spousal support, arguing she should be treated as a 'putative spouse' - someone who married in good faith believing the marriage was valid. After a trial, the district court granted the annulment, divided the jointly held property equally, and ordered Richard to pay Marcie $500 per month for four years as compensation for giving up her career to raise their children. The Nevada Supreme Court adopted, for the first time in Nevada, the 'putative spouse doctrine.' Under it, a person who participates in a marriage ceremony with an honest and reasonable good-faith belief that the marriage is valid is treated as a spouse for certain purposes. Good faith is presumed, and the court found substantial evidence that Marcie acted in good faith in relying on her former husband's statement that they were divorced. But the doctrine has limits. The court held that community property principles apply to divide property acquired during a putative marriage, so it affirmed the equal division of property. However, the court held the doctrine does not allow spousal support (alimony) unless there is a statute permitting it or the other spouse acted in bad faith or by fraud. Nevada's annulment statutes do not authorize alimony, and neither spouse here acted in bad faith. So the court reversed the spousal support award while keeping the property division.