Williams v. Williams
Before: McCOMB
McCOMB, J.
Plaintiff appeals from the portion of a judgment in a decree annulling his marriage to defendant which awards the custody of the minor children of the parties to defendant and orders plaintiff to pay defendant the sum of $10 per week for the support of said minor children.
[207]
Chronology
i. Plaintiff and defendant were married September 20,1945.
ii. As a result of the marriage two children were born.
iii. December 28, 1948, plaintiff learned that defendant was not a single woman at the time he married her, but was married to one Frank Gardner.
iv. Plaintiff instituted the present action for annulment of the marriage, stating that defendant had represented to him that she was a single woman; that he had relied on these representations; that otherwise he would not have consented to marry her; and that by reason of such fraud and deception practiced on plaintiff, “said marriage, though regular in form, was null and void,” and prayed “that the marriage as heretofore entered into between plaintiff and defendant be annulled, declared void and of no force and effect.”
v. The trial court found, supported by substantial evidence, that the foregoing facts were true and that “the marriage, though regular in form, is null and void.”
In the conclusions of law the trial court stated “that the marriage between the parties hereto is null and void and voidable, and plaintiff is entitled to a decree of annulment.”
In the judgment the trial court ordered “that the marriage heretofore entered into by and between Plaintiff and Defendant be and the same is hereby declared to be void from the beginning and also voidable, and is annulled.”
Question
In view of the provisions of section 84 of the Civil Code, did the trial court have the authority to award the custody of the children of the parties to defendant and order plaintiff to pay for their support?
Yes. Section 84 of the Civil Code of the State of California reads: “A judgment of nullity of marriage does not affect the legitimacy of children conceived or born before the judgment, and the court may during the pendency of the action, or at the time judgment is rendered or at any time thereafter make such order for the custody, care, education, maintenance and support of such children during their minority as may seem necessary or proper; except that the court must award the custody of the children of a marriage annulled on the ground of fraud or force to the innocent parent.”
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)