Halvorsen v. Halvorsen

BARNARD, P. J. In this action each of the parties sought an annulment of their marriage. The parties, both residents of Los Angeles County, went through a marriage ceremony in Tiajuana, Mexico, on November 1, 1937. The defendant was then of the age of 17 years and 7 months, and she did not have the consent of her parents. It appears that they returned immediately to Los Angeles and that they never lived together or cohabited as husband and wife.

The entire proceedings at the trial of the action take up less than three pages of the transcript, all of the testimony being confined to one page. The plaintiff testified that he and the defendant were married in Tiajuana, Mexico; that they never lived together or cohabited as husband and wife; and that they returned to Los Angeles immediately after the marriage. The trial judge then remarked “That is enough”. After inquiring as to the defendant’s age at the time of the marriage, he then stated that the case of McDonald v. McDonald, 6 Cal. (2d) 457 [58 Pac. (2d) 163, 104 A. L. R. 1290], held “that the validity of the marriage is determined at the place where consummated”, referred to two sections of the Mexican Code, and remarked that the law of Mexico is not the same as that of California. He then asked whether the defendant and cross-complainant was represented by counsel and after her attorney replied in the affirmative, he said: “The annulment is denied on the complaint and the annulment is denied on the cross-complaint”. A judgment was entered and the defendant and cross-complainant has appealed.

Apparently, these parties went through some kind of a marriage ceremony in Tiajuana, Mexico. Although we are not experts on Mexican law it is our understanding that the taking of a considerable number of steps in a very definite manner is required in order to make a marriage valid under that law. It does not appear whether such requirements were complied with, in this instance, as no evidence in support of the cross-complaint was received. The facts should have been ascertained and, if necessary, the pleadings could have been amended to conform to the proof. While the plaintiff [213]testified that he and the defendant “were married” there is an entire absence of any testimony as to what actually took place on that occasion, and there is no evidence of any facts from which it could possibly be determined whether or not the requisite things were had and done in order to constitute this a valid marriage under the laws of the jurisdiction in which the purported ceremony was performed. In addition, no evidence was received relative to the laws of Mexico upon the subjects here involved, either those relating to the validity of this marriage or to the possibility of its being annulled.