Source: https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/1505305006
Timestamp: 2018-01-22 15:53:30
Document Index: 76375875

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 202', '§ 402', '§404', '§ 122', '§ 308', '§ 2201', '§ 416', '§ 404', '§ 416', '§ 404', '§ 308', '§ 2201', '§ 6401']

SSA - POMS: PR 05305.006 - California - 02/19/2015
PR 05305.006 California
Under California law, when a person knowingly enters into a bigamous marriage, that marriage is illegal and void from its inception.
No. Under California law, Claimant’s April 5, 2010 marriage to S~ was void from its inception. Accordingly, Claimant was unmarried at the time of the DWE’s death, and she is entitled to mother’s benefits on the DWE’s account if she meets the other applicable requirements.1
Social Security Act §§ 202(g)(1), 216(d)(3),(7); 42 U.S.C. §§ 402(g)(1), 416(d)(3),(7); see also 20 C.F.R. §404.340 (requirements for mother’s or father’s benefits as a surviving divorced spouse); Program Operations Manual System (POMS) RS 00208.010.2
Based on the information you provided, Claimant’s entitlement to mother’s benefits as the DWE’s surviving divorced spouse turns on whether she was unmarried at the time of the DWE’s death.3 If Claimant’s April 5, 2010 marriage to S~ was valid and she remained married at the time of the DWE’s death, she would be ineligible for mother’s benefits on the DWE’s account. See POMS RS 00208.035.A (generally, remarriage bars entitlement to mother’s benefits).
Under Nevada law, a marriage is prohibited by law and void, even without decree of divorce or annulment, if either party to the marriage had a currently living spouse. Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 122.020, 125.290; but see Williams v. Williams, 120 Nev. 559, 564, 97 P. 3d 1124, 1127 (Nev. 2004) (parties agreed that the marriage was void under section 125.290, but annulment proceedings were necessary to determine the would-be wife’s entitlement to joint property as a putative spouse based on her good faith belief that the marriage was valid when she entered into it).4
California courts defer to Nevada law in determining the validity of marriages contracted in Nevada. See, e.g., In re Marriage of Seaton, 200 Cal. App. 4th at 807-808. However, California applies its own law to determine whether a marriage, invalidly contracted in another state, was void from inception or merely voidable. See Cal. Fam. Code § 308. Thus, we look to California law to determine this issue. The California Superior Court, in the June 18, 2014 judgment, nullifying the April 5, 2010 marriage, therefore correctly relied upon California law in nullifying the marriage between Claimant and S~.5
Here, a California Superior Court issued a June 18, 2014 judgment nullifying Claimant’s marriage to S~ under section 2210(b) of the California Family Code, which applies to a voidable marriage. However, Claimant admits that she was aware at the time of her marriage to S~ that she was still married to the DWE. Thus, Claimant’s marriage to S~ was void from its inception even absent a decree of nullity. See Cal. Fam. Code § 2201(a);6 Ceja v. Rudolph & Sletten, Inc., 56 Cal. 4th 1113, 302 P.3d 211, 216 (Cal. 2013) (recognizing that putative spouse doctrine applies only when spouse has genuine belief in validity of marriage).
B. PR 04-012 OPINION: Claim for Widow's Benefits on account of wage earner, A~, SSN: ~
A California court would find that the claimant (the second wife in a polygamous marriage to the NH) had the same status with respect to taking the intestate personal property of the NH as a surviving spouse. Although the polygamous marriage probably would not be recognized as valid in California, because of California Family Code section 2201, public policy would not be affected, because the sole question would be division of intestate property, with no apparent conflict between interested parties (i.e., claimant, and the son of claimant and the NH).
You asked whether the claimant, L~ (hereinafter, "the claimant"), the second wife in a polygamous marriage to the deceased wage earner, A~ (hereinafter, "the wage earner"), qualifies as the wage earner's widow for purposes of her claim for widow's benefits.
Yes. The claimant is deemed the widow of the wage earner because under the laws applied by the California courts, she would have the same status with respect to taking a share of the wage earner's intestate personal property as the surviving spouse of the wage earner.
The claimant has apparently submitted copies of various documents to SSA, including evidence of her purported marriage to the wage earner. The evidence submitted by the claimant is assumed to be true so L~ for purposes of the analysis below.
The wage earner apparently married M~ on January 1, 1940. The claimant allegedly married the wage earner, in Vietnam, on February 9, 1948. The wage earner's marriage to M~ apparently ended by her death on February 17, 1982. The wage earner apparently married Y~ on June 5, 1983. The wage earner's marriage to Y~ ended no later than November 9, 1992, the date of the wage earner's death in San Diego, California.7 The claimant and the wage earner allegedly had one child, named Hung L~.
The Social Security Act (hereinafter the "Act") provides that an applicant is the widow of fully insured individual for purposes of Title II survivor's benefits, if the courts of the State in which the individual was domiciled at the time of his death would find that such applicant and the insured individual were validly married either at the time the application was filed, or at the time the insured individual died. 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(1)(A)(i); 20 C.F.R. § 404.345 (2003).
Alternatively, if the State courts would not find the applicant and the insured individual were validly married at such time, the applicant shall be deemed to be the widow of the insured individual if she would, under the laws applied by such courts in determining the devolution of intestate personal property, have the same status with respect to the taking of such property as a widow of the insured individual. 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(1)(A)(ii); 20 C.F.R. § 404.345 (2003).
The California Family Code provides that a marriage contracted outside California that would be valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted is valid in California. Cal. Fam. C. § 308 (West 2003).
The California Family Code also provides that a subsequent marriage contracted by a person during the life of a former husband or wife of the person, with a person other than the former husband or wife, is illegal and void from the beginning, unless, inter alia, the former marriage has been dissolved or adjudged a nullity before the date of the subsequent marriage. Cal. Fam. C. § 2201 (West 2003).
The California Probate Code provides that the surviving spouse's intestate share of a decedent's separate property (i.e., not community property) is the entire intestate estate, if the decedent did not leave any surviving issue, parent, brother, sister, or issue of a deceased brother or sister; or, one-half of the intestate estate where the decedent leaves one child. Cal. Prob. C. § 6401(c) (West 2003).
POMS PR 06005.396, footnote 3 (May 14, 1998), states that "prior to 1959, polygamy was still legal in Viet Nam."
In 1948, the California Court of Appeal reviewed a proceeding to determine the heirs of a husband possessed of two Legal wives under the laws of the Punjab province of India. Estate of Bir, 83 Cal. App.2d 256, 188 P.2d 499 (1948). The wives relied on the provisions of former California Civil Code section 63, the predecessor of California Family Code section 308.
The court noted the well-settled rule that marriages valid by the laws of the country where they are contracted, are held valid in any other country to which the parties may move, except in cases where the public policy in the country to which they move is an obstacle~, or where the marriage would be regarded as immoral. Estate of Bir, 83 Cal. App.2d at 261 (citation omitted); cf. McDonald v. McDonald, 6 Cal.2d 457, 460, 58 P.2d 163 (1936) (law of place where contract was made governs as to validity of marriage, except when marriage is regarded as odious by common consent of nations, e.g., polygamous). The Bir court held that public policy would not be affected where the only question was descent of property, specifically the uncontested division of money between the two wives. Estate of Bir, 83 Cal. App.2d at 261-62.
Given the facts alleged here, a California court likely would find that the claimant had the same status with respect to taking the intestate personal property of the wage earner as a surviving spouse.8 Although the polygamous marriage probably would not be recognized as valid in California, because of California Family Code section 2201, public policy would not be affected, because the sole question would be division of intestate property, with no apparent conflict between interested parties (i.e., claimant, and the son of claimant and the wage earner).
Based on the alleged facts set forth above, the claimant would qualify for widow's benefits as the wage earner's surviving spouse under California law.