Ruiz v. Ruiz

California Court of Appeal Mar 27, 1970 No. Civ. 25850Published

Before: Draper

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A minor's knowing misrepresentation of his age to obtain a marriage license does not bar him from seeking an annulment of the marriage based on nonage. The public policy requiring court permission for marriages of males under 18 cannot be frustrated by the minor's own misconduct.

Issues

Whether a minor's knowing misrepresentation of age to obtain a marriage license bars him from seeking an annulment based on nonage.
Whether the trial court has discretion to deny an annulment for nonage based on the 'clean hands' doctrine when the minor misrepresented his age.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“we conclude that the clear public policy cannot be frustrated by the conduct of the minor, however reprehensible.”

“to permit a minor to effect a valid marriage by his own knowing misrepresentation is to allow him to defeat the very purpose of the statute.”

Opinion

DRAPER, P. J.

The parties to this litigation were married when appellant was but 17 years old. In applying for the marriage license, appellant male represented himself to be 18 years of age. Since he had his mother’s written consent, the license issued without an order of the superior court. A court order granting permission to marry is required, in addition to parental consent, when the male is under 18 but over 16 years of age. (Civ. Code, § 56, now § 4101.) The mother was not a party to, or aware of, the misrepresentation in the application for a marriage license. Five months after the marriage, but still before the husband attained the age of 18, he filed this action for annulment through his mother, as guardian ad litem. The wife, although served, did not appear, and the facts are undisputed. The trial court nonetheless denied relief because plaintiff’s knowing misrepresentation in securing the license was the basis for the relief sought. Plaintiff appeals.

The precise issue here has not been decided in California. It is established that a parent who is not a party to the fraud is neither estopped

[60]

nor barred by the “clean hands” doctrine from procuring an annulment of the child’s marriage

(Vaughan

Gideon,

56 Cal.App.2d 158 [132 P.2d 529]). Nor is the parent plaintiff barred when his consent to the marriage was obtained by a fraudulent representation by his son

(Turner

Turner,

167 Cal.App.2d 636 [334 P.2d 1011]). Although-t-hese--eases, particularly

Turner,

may be read as indicating that the statute (Civ. Code, § 56, now § 4101) establishes a public policy against non-age marriages, amicus curiae is technically correct in distinguishing them on the ground that in neither was the plaintiff parent seeking to take advantage of his own wrong, as is the minor plaintiff here. The amicus brief also points to the provision that “[a] marriage may be annulled” for specific grounds, including nonage (Civ. Code, § 82, now § 4425). The argument is that use of the word “may” renders the annulment wholly discretionary with the trial court.

Ruiz v. Ruiz

AI Brief

DRAPER, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief