Seminar 5 DB#2
Q. In Ceja v. Rudolph, why would Nancy succeed under a subjective test but fail under an objective test?
One of the issues in this case was that the Court must decide whether section 377.60, subdivision (b) contemplates a subjective or objective standard of good faith for putative spouse status. Ceja v. Rudolph & Sletten, Inc., 56 Cal. 4th 1113, 158 Cal. Rptr. 3d 21, 302 P.3d 211 (2013).
Section 377.60 (b) provides that a putative spouse is defined as “the surviving spouse of a void or voidable marriage who is found by the court to have believed in good faith that the marriage to the decedent was valid.”
Nancy failed under an objective test as the trial court granted the defendant’s judgement summary, ruling that she did
…show more content…
not satisfy the “good faith believe” requirement. The trial court concluded her belief that her marriage was valid was not objectively reasonable. Among other things, the defendant was providing the following facts to show her belief was not reasonable. Id. at 1118. • Although Nancy had knowledge of the decedent’s previous marriage, she signed the marriage license in which the decedent falsely indicated that he had never been married before. • Nancy faxed the court document to the decedent’s union that clearly show that the decedent’s previous marriage was not dissolved until after the fact he married Nancy. Under an objective test, Nancy will fail because an ordinary person in Nancy’s position, with such knowledge regarding the decedent’s previous marriage, would reasonably understand marrying a man who is already married to another woman, not yet divorced, would not effectuate her marriage to the same man. A reasonable person would have been aware that the decedent’s and Christina were still legally married, and therefore, Nancy’s marriage to the decedent could not have been valid; It had to occur after the decedent’s marriage to Christiania was dissolved. Id. These facts evidence that Nancy should have reasonably known that her marriage to the decedent was invalid. Accordingly, she could not have believed in good faith that it was a valid marriage. Therefore, Nancy will likely fail under an objective test. On the other hand, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision. It applied a subjective test instead to determine if Nancy had a good faith belief of the validity of her marriage to the decedent and concluded that she did. The California Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal, reasoning that a subjective test must be used because her state of mind is the determinant of whether or not her belief was made in good faith.
It looks to the statutory phrase “believed in good faith” and found that the meaning of the phrase is to be based on the putative spouse’s subjective view; It requires only that he/she honestly and genuinely believes that the marriage was valid. Nonetheless, the Court noted that the reasonableness of his/her subjective belief should be evaluated “as part of the totality of the circumstances in determining whether the belief was genuinely and honestly held.” Id. And this part of evaluation requires the application of an objective view …show more content…
standard. Considering the circumstances and surroundings of the situation leading up to the marriage is also important to determine whether the belief was honest and genuine. For example, the lack of personal familiarity and experience with marriage can be a material factor to support the person’s honest and genuine belief of his/her marriage’s validity. E.g., Santos v. Santos, 32 Cal. App. 2d 62, 89 P.2d 164 (1939). The Court also pointed out that the putative spouse’s educational background may also be considered in determining the person’s good faith claim in his/her marriage. E.g., Neureither v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd., 15 Cal. App. 3d 429, 93 Cal. Rptr. 162 (1971). The Court provided that “the totality of the circumstances from the personal perspective of the alleged putative spouse supports the inference of a subjective good faith standard.” Ceja v. Rudolph & Sletten, Inc., at 1124. The parties’ conduct that they are acting as a married couple after their putative marriage is also an important factor to determine whether or not the putative spouse had a good faith belief that the marriage was valid. Id. 1124. Nancy and the decedent had a well-attended marriage ceremony: Nancy always held herself out as his wife: Nancy changed her last name to the decedent’s: the couple wore the wedding rings: the couple shared the bank account: and the couple lived together.
Id. at 1118. Nancy would succeed under a subjective test because she and decedent’s conduct after their allegedly putative marriage can reasonably infer that they were acting as a married couple. Also, due to Nancy’s lack of understanding of the marriage documents or familiarity and the inexperience with marriage and divorce processes, it is reasonable that Nancy herself believed and in her subjective state of mind under these circumstances, she genuinely thought that they were indeed married. Nancy will likely satisfy the good faith belief requirement. These facts will warrant her belief was honest as well as reasonable, as they are considered in totality of these
circumstances. Therefore, Nancy will likely prevail under a subjective test.
In the case of Alex (plaintiff) vs. Abigail (defendant), we the jury find Abigail guilty of fraud through unanimous vote. Alex presented enough evidence to support the claims of breach of contract and fraud committed by the defendant.
Similar to the sisters’ observation, the analyst initially thought that the foreign material that was floating in the bottle was a condom, however, upon examination, he was scientifically certain that the foreign object was a mold. As the trial ended, the jury favored the plaintiffs, awarding them $75,000 each. Nevertheless, the trial court decreased the jury award to $25,000 each to Hagan and Parker. Both involved parties appealed to the Fifth District Court Appeals. The appellate court concluded under the case law concerning the impact rule -that the sisters had not established a claim because they did not suffer a physical injury. The appellate court reversed the jury award.
3. Procedural History: This matter comes before the court on motions of defendants for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, for new trial pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for amended judgment. We have considered defendants' motions collectively and individually and conclude that neither a new trial, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, nor amended judgment is warranted. The evidence supports the jury's verdict.
In Reyes v. Missouri Pac. R. CO., the appellant, Joel Reyes, sought rehabilitation from the defendant, Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, after being run over by one of the defendants trains while lying on the tracks. The appellant claims the defendant was negligent due to its inability to see the plaintiff in time to stop the train. The defendant refutes the plaintiffs claim by blaming the plaintiff for contributory negligence because the plaintiff was believed to be drunk on the night in question based off of pass arrest records . In a motion in limine Reyes ask for the exclusion of the evidence presented by the defense. The trial court, however denied the plaintiff’s request and ruled in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff, Reyes,
Analysis / Ruling of the Court. The district court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgement on the sexual harassment claim due to the fact that Sherry Lynch treated both men and women equally in this case; that is, she behaved in the same vulgar and inappropriate way towards both genders. For this reason, Smith’s gender was not a contributing factor to the harassment, which is one of the conditions that would have to be met for the sexual harassment claim. The appellate court agreed and affirmed the district court’s judgement. The district court ended up excluding evidence pertaining to the sexual harassment claim because the sexual harassment claim had been dismissed on summary judgement, and because the court decided that the details of the harassment bore little relevance to the retaliation case whereas this evidence would be unfairly prejudicial to Hy-Vee. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgement. Smith did not offer any specifics on what evidence she would have wanted to present, which made it hard for the court to determine whether this evidence was material to the retaliation case or not. In her opposition to the motion in limine, she said she only wanted to discuss the harassment case in general, including mentioning that Lynch had harassed/touched her inappropriately. Hy-Vee had no objection to this, and Smith got to present this much evidence in the trial. Therefore, the appellate court found that she waived any objection to the
The importance of this decision is found in the Judgment of Dixon J, which articulates the existence of a special equity that protects a wife acting as a guarantor in relation to her husband’s debts. In ...
Upon her conviction, Mapp appealed the case to the Court of Appeals, Eighth Judicial Circuit, but the cour...
The reason being, the Supreme Court found that the expert evidence was not only useful, but was required to have a more in-depth understanding of the issues surrounding battered women. The rationale was, without expert testimony most people would be ignorant to spousal abuse. It was thought that without expert testimony, jurors would make assumptions about the stereotypes that may have been popularized by society as well ignore the importance of previous events that led up to the incident. Moreover, the trial judge charged the jurors properly, explaining that as long as there is some admissible evidence to establish the foundation for the expert 's opinion, he cannot subsequently instruct the jury to completely ignore the testimony. The judge also warned the jury that the more the expert relies on facts, not proven in evidence the less weight the jury may attribute to the opinion. Furthermore, expert evidence does not and cannot usurp the jury 's function of deciding whether, in fact, the accused 's perceptions and actions were reasonable. But fairness and the integrity of the trial process demand that the jury have the opportunity to hear that
Rule: 1. Justice White, speaking for the majority believes that the decision in this case is similar to Bell v. Burson, in which held that the state could not deprive a person of there drivers license pertaining to a speeding violation without a hearing. He stated: "The states interest in caring for Stanley’s children is de minimis if Stanley is shown to be a fit father. It insists on presuming rather than proving Stanley’s unfitness solely because it is more convenient to presume than to prove. 2. They concluded that all Illinois parents are constitutionally entitled to a hearing on their fitness before their children are removed from their custody. Denying such a hearing to Stanley and those like him while granting it to other Illinois parents is inescapably contrary to the Equal Protection Clause. 3. The rule of law that justifies the holding of the case is: "It is cardinal with us that the custody, care, and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state may neither supply nor hinder" (Prince v. Mass.). 4. "The integrity of the family unit has found protection in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Ninth Amendment.
nature of s. 281 lent itself to legal debate under section 2 of the relatively
The MPA is not discriminatory in its extension solely to married couples, for it does not deprive common law spouses of the dignity and liberty to choose alternative forms of cohabiting unions. The choice of cohabiting common law spouses to not pursue marriage can be attributed to numerous factors that must be respected in light of their personal autonomy. They have the liberty to make this choice. In order to determine whether there was a violation of section 15 of the Charter, the majority applied the Law test, which is a three-stage approach that was set out in Law v Canada.
Godiner v. Moran, p. 78. (1993) The 'Standard' of the Supreme Court of the United States. United States v. Sell, 343 F.3d 950, 2003 U.S. Appl. No. 89/0, LEXIS 26859 (8th Cir., Sept. 2, 2003).
"The Constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act in the Wake of Romer v. Evans ." New
It is for the judge to decide if the case meets two criteria: there must have been a wrongful act committed and the plaintiff must have suffered.
United States of America. U.S. Supreme Court. Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School, 1 Apr. 2003. 13 Nov. 2013