Court Opinion

ID: 9608334
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:10:38.331365+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:45.491004
License: Public Domain

FARE, Justice,
with whom RABINOWITZ, Justice, joins, dissenting.
I dissent from the opinion of the court because it is my view that Michael should be estopped from denying the validity of his marriage to Earline.
Michael and Earline lived together as husband and wife for over twenty years. They obtained a marriage license and participated in a formal marriage ceremony. They had a son and raised him together. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s they filed joint federal tax returns. Michael named Earline as his spouse with his health care insurer. When asked if he thought he was married, Michael testified: “I’m not sure how to answer that, your Honor.... I guess at the back of my mind, I’ve always known that we weren’t, but yes, I have played and gone through life and acted with Earline as if she was my wife.” In fact, Michael never questioned the validity of the marriage until after he had filed an action for divorce,1 and it became financially advantageous for him to do so. Basic notions of equity, fairness, and justice require that he be estopped from denying the validity of the marriage in an attempt to avoid sharing what would be marital assets or paying otherwise appropriate spousal support.
I agree with the court that Michael and Earline’s marriage was not a putative marriage under the definition of AS 25.05.051 because both Michael and Earline knew that their marriage was not valid at the time of their wedding ceremony. This fact, however, does not preclude application of the doctrine of quasi-estoppel.
Quasi-estoppel “precludes a party from taking a position inconsistent with one he [or she] has previously taken where circumstances render assertion of the second position unconscionable.” Jamison v. Consolidated Utils., Inc., 576 P.2d 97, 102 (Alaska 1978). Quasi-estoppel does not require the injured party to have relied on the estopped party’s conduct or statements, nor does- it require the injured party to be ignorant of the truth. Id. at 102. In determining if quasi-estoppel applies, the court considers “whether the party asserting the inconsistent position has gained an advantage or produced some disadvantage through the first *555position; whether the inconsistency was of such significance as to make the present assertion unconscionable; and whether the first assertion was based on full knowledge of the facts.” Id.
The California Court of Appeal has applied estoppel in a case similar to this one. In In re Marriage of Recknor, 138 Cal.App.3d 539, 187 Cal.Rptr. 887, 892 (1982), the Recknors participated in a formal marriage ceremony knowing that Eve Recknor’s divorce from her first husband was not final and that their marriage was void. The Recknors’ marriage did not meet the statutory definition of a putative marriage because neither party possessed a good faith belief in the marriage’s validity. Id. 187 Cal.Rptr. at 890. However, the trial court ordered Ralph Recknor to pay Eve spousal support pendente lite and attorney’s fees, citing previous support eases es-topping a party from denying the validity of a marriage. Id.
In affirming the trial court’s decision, the California Court of Appeal held that “the award may be upheld on the independent, equitable ground of estoppel.” Id. at 891. The Court reasoned:
In this case, Ralph was properly es-topped to deny that he was validly married to Eve. He went through a formal marriage ceremony with her, knowing that her divorce was not final, and continued to live with her as her husband for 15 years, during which time they had two children. Further, Ralph waited almost 15 years to attempt to assert the invalidity of his marriage to Eve.
Id. at 892.
Following the reasoning of the Recknor court, the doctrine of quasi-estoppel provides the appropriate remedy in this case. After Michael has reaped the benefits of holding himself out as married to Earline for more than twenty years, it is unconscionable for him to assert now that his marriage to her is void. The majority’s resolution of this ease penalizes Earline for the seven-month period in which Michael’s divorce was not yet final and ignores the more than twenty years during which they held themselves out as husband and wife. Equity requires that Michael be estopped from denying the existence of his marriage to Earline simply because it benefits him financially to do so.
Estopping Michael from denying the validity of his marriage to Earline does not validate a marriage which AS 25.05.021 and 25.05.051 render void. Nor does estoppel contravene the strong public policy expressed by our marriage statute. There is a difference between declaring a marriage void and preventing a party from asserting its invalidity. It would be inimical to our law supporting committed family relationships to allow Michael Batey to now avoid his marital obligations.
I would therefore affirm the trial court’s division of property and award of spousal support.

. His complaint averred that he and Earline were married in February 1971 “and ever since that date have been and are now husband and wife."