Legal Opinion

Chaney v. Netterstrom

California Court of Appeal, 5th District

Decided March 8, 2018No. 2d Civil No. B282120Published

1Opinion of the CourtPerren, J.

*63After three years of dating and cohabitation, appellant Leanne Netterstrom and respondent Michael Chaney applied for a confidential marriage license and exchanged vows at a solemnization ceremony. After the ceremony, the officiant gave *861the signed license to the parties, who promised to file it with the county. For personal and financial reasons, the parties did not return the license to the county. Four years later, Chaney petitioned for dissolution of marriage. Netterstrom moved to quash on the ground that she and Chaney are not married. The trial court denied the motion to quash.

Rule 1:…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Lockyer v. City and County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Ceja v. Rudolph & Sletten, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2013
  3. Davis v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
  4. Estate of Derrel Depasse v. HarrisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
  5. Burnham v. Public Employees' Retirement SystemCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API