Domestic Partnerships Laws

Useful Rulings on Domestic Partnerships

Rulings on Domestic Partnerships

STEVEN HAWKINS ET AL VS PHILLIP CABASSO MD ET AL

Code Civil Procedure § 377.60 as he “failed to properly register his domestic partnership under Cal. Family Code § 297(b).” See Cabasso Motion filed on 6/8/18. The issue there was whether formal registration was required to qualify as a domestic partnership. Case authority supported the contention that formal registration was not required so long as the party had a good faith belief that the marriage was validly registered. In re Domestic Partnership of Ellis & Arriaga (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1000, 1003.

  • Hearing

STEVEN HAWKINS ET AL VS PHILLIP CABASSO MD ET AL

Code Civil Procedure § 377.60 as he “failed to properly register his domestic partnership under Cal. Family Code § 297(b).” See Cabasso Motion filed on 6/8/18. The issue there was whether formal registration was required to qualify as a domestic partnership. Case authority supported the contention that formal registration was not required so long as the party had a good faith belief that the marriage was validly registered. In re Domestic Partnership of Ellis & Arriaga (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1000, 1003.

  • Hearing

STEVEN HAWKINS ET AL VS PHILLIP CABASSO MD ET AL

It also states “persons of opposite sexes may not constitute a domestic partnership unless one or both of the persons are over 62 years of age.” Family Code § 297.Having not met those statutory requirements, Defendants argue that Plaintiff was never eligible for domestic partnership as he and decedent were not among the class of persons eligible to register.

  • Hearing

STEVEN HAWKINS ET AL VS PHILLIP CABASSO MD ET AL

It also states “persons of opposite sexes may not constitute a domestic partnership unless one or both of the persons are over 62 years of age.” Family Code § 297. Having not met those statutory requirements, Defendants argue that Plaintiff was never eligible for domestic partnership as he and decedent were not among the class of persons eligible to register.

  • Hearing

STEVEN HAWKINS ET AL VS PHILLIP CABASSO MD ET AL

As Defendants previously established, establishing a domestic partnership requires registration in accordance with Fam Code § 297(b). Code Civ. Proc., § 377.60. As Plaintiff’s case authority established, as cited in his opposition to the Cabasso Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication, whether a putative spouse relationship exists depends on the spouse’s subjective, good faith belief; a valid registration was not required.

  • Hearing

RE: PET’N FOR LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION W/AUTH TO ADMIN UNDER IAEA

Verified declaration by petitioner to clarify ages of petitioner and decedent at time of registration of domestic partnership. Fam Code §297(b)(4)(B) 3. Proof of mailing to Richard Cohn, Jr. at address in petition or waiver of notice. PrC § 1202 4. Proof of mailing to Elizabeth Vackuja or waiver of notice. PrC § 8110 Note: Objection filed by George Richard Cohn 2-26-19. Superseded by Line # 21.B. If to proceed, would Need: 1. Proof of Publication. PrC § 8120 2.

  • Hearing

STEVEN HAWKINS ET AL VS PHILLIP CABASSO MD ET AL

Under the 2002 version of the wrongful death statute, registration of the domestic partnership was required in order for the surviving domestic partner to sue for wrongful death of the deceased partner. Armijo v. Miles (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1405, 1414. The current statute, effective January 1, 2005, defines a “domestic partnership” as one that has been registered in accordance with Fam. Code § 297(b). Code Civ. Proc., § 377.60.

  • Hearing

RE: SPOUSAL PROPERTY PTN

Verified declaration by petitioner to clarify ages of petitioner and decedent at time of registration of domestic partnership. Fam Code §297(b)(4)(B) 3. Proof of mailing to all persons entitled to receive notice 4. Verified declaration by petitioner to complete petition item # 4.a. or 4.b. (whether decedent was a resident of California or nonresident of California) 5. Proposed Order Note: Petition for Letters of Administration filed by daughter Michaela Wolf is set for hearing 2-19-19.

  • Hearing

RE: PET’N FOR LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION W/AUTH TO ADMIN UNDER IAEA

Verified declaration by petitioner to clarify ages of petitioner and decedent at time of registration of domestic partnership. Fam Code §297(b)(4)(B) 3. Proof of mailing to Richard Cohn, Jr. at address in petition or waiver of notice. PrC § 1202 4. Proof of mailing to Elizabeth Vackuja or waiver of notice. PrC § 8110 Need: 1. Proof of Publication with IAEA advisement. Proof of Publication filed 2-6-19 is incomplete. PrC § 8120 2. Corrected proof of mailing to verify Proof of Service filed 12-26-18.

  • Hearing

BARTOLOMEIO SGAMBATI VS DAVID HUYNH

A domestic partnership shall be established in California when both persons file a Declaration of Domestic Partnership with the Secretary of State pursuant to this division and satisfy other requirements (i.e., not currently married to another, not blood-related, over the age of 18, and are members of the same sex). (Family Code, §297(b).) Here, there is no indication that the parties registered as a domestic partnership.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

IN THE MATTER OF MARILYN SMITHSON

Rencher establishes the June 29, 2016 filing of a domestic partnership registration with the County Clerk, acknowledging statutory lack of technical eligibility under Family Code §297(b)(4)(B), but arguing qualification as a putative domestic partnership. Mr. Rencher further contends cross-petitioner is unfitto execute the duties of the office (Prob.C.§8402(a)(2)) as a result of cross-petitioner's recent arrest for allegedly using the estate property to illegally manufacture controlled substances.

  • Hearing

IN THE MATTER OF MARILYN SMITHSON

Rencher establishes the June 29, 2016 filing of a domestic partnership registration with the County Clerk, acknowledging statutory lack of technical eligibility under Family Code §297(b)(4)(B), but arguing qualification as a putative domestic partnership. Mr. Rencher further contends cross-petitioner is unfitto execute the duties of the office (Prob.C.§8402(a)(2)) as a result of cross-petitioner's recent arrest for allegedly using the estate property to illegally manufacture controlled substances.

  • Hearing

IN THE MATTER OF MARILYN SMITHSON

Rencher establishes the June 29, 2016 filing of a domestic partnership registration with the County Clerk, acknowledging statutory lack of technical eligibility under Family Code §297(b)(4)(B), but arguing qualification as a putative domestic partnership. Mr. Rencher further contends cross-petitioner is unfitto execute the duties of the office (Prob.C.§8402(a)(2)) as a result of cross-petitioner's recent arrest for allegedly using the estate property to illegally manufacture controlled substances.

  • Hearing

IN THE MATTER OF MARILYN SMITHSON

Rencher establishes the June 29, 2016 filing of a domestic partnership registration with the County Clerk, acknowledging statutory lack of technical eligibility under Family Code §297(b)(4)(B), but arguing qualification as a putative domestic partnership. Mr. Rencher further contends cross-petitioner is unfitto execute the duties of the office (Prob.C.§8402(a)(2)) as a result of cross-petitioner's recent arrest for allegedly using the estate property to illegally manufacture controlled substances.

  • Hearing

MAXINE MARIAH MEDINA ET AL VS CITY OF EL MONTE ET AL

“Domestic partner” means a person who, at the time of the decedent’s death, was the domestic partner of the decedent in a registered domestic partnership established in accordance with subdivision (b) of section 297 of the Family Code. That subdivision provides that a domestic partnership is established when both persons file a Declaration of Domestic Partnership and certain requirements are met. Cal. Family Code § 297(b).

  • Hearing

RE: 1ST ACCT & REPORT OF TRST ADMIN & PET’N FOR SETTMNT

Verified declaration by petitioner to clarify ages of petitioner and decedent at time of registration of domestic partnership. Fam Code §297(b)(4)(B) 3. Proof of mailing to Richard Cohn, Jr. at address in petition or waiver of notice. PrC § 1202 4. Proof of mailing to Elizabeth Vackuja or waiver of notice. PrC § 8110 PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1. Proof of Publication with IAEA advisement. Proof of Publication filed 2-6-19 is incomplete. PrC § 8120 2.

  • Hearing

SHAYNE SHNAPIER VS JASON SKLAVER

The FAC alleges that Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a registered domestic partnership in January 2003, after Defendant persuaded Plaintiff to move to California from Florida; they executed a domestic partnership affidavit that recited mutual obligations; during their relationship Defendant repeatedly told Plaintiff that everything they purchased belonged to both of them; Defendant repeatedly told Plaintiff that they would share equally in asset acquisitions, including a house they purchased; and Defendant

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ESTATE OF MELVIN EARNEST LAMAR

A “Surviving Spouse” does not include “A person whose marriage to, or registered domestic partnership with, the decedent has been dissolved or annulled, unless, by virtue of a subsequent marriage or registered domestic partnership, the person is married to, or in a registered domestic partnership with, the decedent at the time of death.” (Prob. Code, § 78.) b) Allegations that contain facts necessary to determine: i) date and place of marriage (Local Rule 1711, subd.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Jed Beebe
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

KIMBERLE OSWALD VS DONALD REYES

(3) The "First" Domestic Partnership Action (D381663): On 5/31/17, the action was dismissed and dispositioned. (4) The Unlawful Detainer Action (2017-00497591): On 6/13/17, a UD action was field to evict Plaintiff from the property. On 9/14/17, the court granted the relief requested and issued a judgment in favor of defendant. (5) The "Second" Domestic Partnership Action (D382644): On 6/21/17, plaintiff filed a second "family law" case alleging a domestic partnership.

  • Hearing

PARK VS. LIM

Dissolution of marriage or domestic partnership; [¶] B. Legal separation of legal separation of a domestic partnership; [¶] Nullity of marriage or domestic partnership and determination of the rights of putative spouses pursuant to Chapter 3 of Part 2 of Division 6 of the Family Code; …. [¶] F. Non-marital relationship cases, e.g., Marvin v. Marvin (1976) 18 Cal.3d 660, when consolidated with a family law matter…..”

  • Hearing

PARK VS. LIM

Dissolution of marriage or domestic partnership; [¶] B. Legal separation of legal separation of a domestic partnership; [¶] Nullity of marriage or domestic partnership and determination of the rights of putative spouses pursuant to Chapter 3 of Part 2 of Division 6 of the Family Code; …. [¶] F. Non-marital relationship cases, e.g., Marvin v. Marvin (1976) 18 Cal.3d 660, when consolidated with a family law matter…..”

  • Hearing

NATALIE RUBIO , ET AL. VS GENIE INDUSTRIES, INC. , ET AL.

When construed liberally, Plaintiff Nora Guzman’s factual allegation that she is the domestic partner of decedent Jamie Rubio is interpreted to mean that she is a partner in a registered domestic partnership. Further, Plaintiff Nora Guzman does not have the burden to prove the registered domestic partnership by attaching a declaration to the complaint. Such an evidentiary showing is not necessary in response to a demurrer, even though it may be needed to oppose a motion for summary judgment standard.

  • Hearing

IN THE MATTER OF LEO MANUEL GUTIERREZ

The court will discuss the issues of waiver of bond and the powers to consent or withhold consent to the marriage of or entrance into a registered domestic partnership and the right to control the proposed Conservatee's social and sexual contacts and relationships with the public defender and Petitioners.

  • Hearing

IN THE MATTER OF LEO MANUEL GUTIERREZ

The court will discuss the issues of waiver of bond and the powers to consent or withhold consent to the marriage of or entrance into a registered domestic partnership and the right to control the proposed Conservatee's social and sexual contacts and relationships with the public defender and Petitioners.

  • Hearing

CONSERVATORSHIP OF DELAND UJANO

Appointed counsel should also be prepared to address whether the present record is sufficient to shift the right to consent or withhold consent to the marriage of, or the entrance into a registered domestic partnership.

  • Hearing

1 2 3     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.