In re Marriage of Kalinawan

In 1986, Brillantes married Minerva, a U.S. citizen, so that he could come to the U.S. from the Philippines. In 1991, Brillantes sought dissolution of the marriage in Nevada, declaring himself a “bona fide resident” of Nevada. Minerva’s sister, who was also Brillantes’ ex-wife, filed an affidavit in support of Brillantes’s action. Minerva, then living in Seattle, submitted to the court’s jurisdiction. Brillantes was granted a Nevada “Decree of Divorce.” Minerva and Cesar married weeks later. They had three children together. They separated in 2005. Minerva filed a petition for dissolution. Cesar sought a nullity of marriage, alleging that his marriage to Minerva was “void” and “bigamous” because Brillantes resided in California when he obtained a divorce by falsely claiming to be a Nevada resident. Brillantes testified that he had resided in Nevada from early April 1991 through late July 1991, then returned to California, The court denied Cesar’s request, finding that Cesar was estopped from challenging the validity of the divorce decree. The court of appeal reversed. Since the undisputed facts did not show that Cesar was a party to the decree, that he had procured it, assisted in procuring it, or had full knowledge of the circumstances under which it was procured, the court erred in finding that quasi-estoppel applied. Cesar was not “apprised of” facts that Minerva was “ignorant of,” so equitable estoppel was inapplicable. View "In re Marriage of Kalinawan" on Justia Law