California Court Orders Return of $380,000 Seized From Woman in Bigamous Marriage

A California appeals court has ordered the return of more than $380,000 seized from a woman’s bank and retirement accounts to satisfy debts owed by a man who married her while he was still legally married to his first wife.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled May 20 that the second marriage was void from its inception because of the existing marriage. The man’s first wife therefore could not treat the second woman as his legal spouse and use a simplified collection procedure to reach accounts held in her name without first obtaining a court order.

The published decision in Greely v. Greely does not prevent the first wife from trying to prove that some of the money belongs to her former husband or is otherwise available to satisfy his debts. It requires her to make that showing in court before taking funds held by the second woman as a third party.

“The question presented here is not whether the funds in Jenny’s accounts are subject to levy by Patricia,” Justice Truc T. Do wrote for the unanimous panel. The legal question was whether Patricia Greely could avoid the requirement of obtaining a court order by declaring that Jenny Ying Lin Lu was Albert Greely’s spouse. The court concluded that she could not.

Albert and Patricia married in 1981. Patricia filed for divorce in San Diego County in 2018, but their marital status was not terminated until May 18, 2023.

While the divorce remained pending, Albert married Jenny in July 2020. According to the appellate opinion, Jenny believed at the time that Albert was already divorced. She later learned that his marriage to Patricia had not ended before the second wedding.

The final divorce judgment ordered Albert to pay Patricia $6,000 per month in spousal support, more than $762,000 in unpaid support and nearly $653,000 as a property equalization payment. His total obligations under the judgment exceeded $1.4 million.

Albert failed to make the required payments. Patricia obtained a writ of execution in December 2023, allowing her to pursue property available to satisfy the judgment.

California law generally permits a judgment creditor to seize money held in an account belonging to the person who owes the debt. An account held in someone else’s name ordinarily cannot be levied without a court order authorizing the seizure.

The law contains an exception for accounts held by the debtor’s spouse. A creditor may reach an account standing in the spouse’s name without obtaining a court order by delivering an affidavit under penalty of perjury stating that the account holder is married to the debtor.

Patricia used that exception. Her affidavit identified Jenny as Albert’s spouse, causing Citibank and Fidelity Investments to freeze money in accounts held by Jenny individually, through her trust, or jointly with her son.

Citibank froze approximately $322,823, while Fidelity froze another $60,726. The levies reached 10 accounts containing more than $383,000 in total. None of the affected accounts was held jointly by Jenny and Albert.

Jenny responded that the money was her separate property or belonged to her son. She also argued that some of the funds qualified for statutory exemptions covering retirement savings, recent earnings and money needed for basic living expenses.

Her central argument was more fundamental: she had never been Albert’s legal spouse because their marriage was bigamous and void from the beginning.

Albert filed an uncontested petition to annul the marriage shortly after the levy notices were served. Jenny requested the same relief. In July 2024, a Santa Clara County judge entered a judgment declaring the marriage invalid on the ground of bigamy.

Jenny then asked the San Diego family court handling Patricia and Albert’s divorce to invalidate the levies and release her funds. She argued that the annulment confirmed that the supposed spousal relationship used to seize her accounts had never legally existed.

The trial court rejected that position. The judge concluded that the later annulment did not undermine levies that had already been served and awarded Patricia the funds from all 10 accounts, except for a $2,170 exemption covering basic care.

The appeals court found that reasoning inconsistent with California law governing void marriages.

Under Family Code Section 2201, a marriage entered into while either person remains married to someone else is generally “illegal and void.” Unlike a voidable marriage, which remains valid until a court annuls it, a void marriage is legally invalid from the moment it begins.

Its invalidity also can be raised in another legal proceeding whenever the existence of the marriage matters. The annulment did not retroactively end an otherwise valid marriage between Jenny and Albert. It confirmed that no valid marriage had existed.

That distinction defeated the affidavit Patricia used to reach Jenny’s accounts. Because Jenny was not legally Albert’s spouse, she remained a third party for purposes of the judgment collection law. Patricia needed a court order before money held separately by Jenny or with her son could be seized.

The court acknowledged that California’s Enforcement of Judgments Law does not contain a specific procedure for challenging a defective bank levy under these circumstances. It nevertheless held that trial courts possess inherent authority to consider a motion to quash an invalid levy when necessary to protect a person’s rights.

Patricia argued that the funds could qualify as quasi-marital property under California’s putative-spouse doctrine. That doctrine can protect a person who entered an invalid marriage while holding a good-faith belief that it was valid. Property acquired during such a relationship can, under certain circumstances, be treated similarly to community property.

She also alleged that Albert had fraudulently transferred money into Jenny’s accounts and argued that equitable principles supported using the funds to pay the divorce judgment.

The appellate court did not decide those claims. No property division had been requested or ordered in the annulment case, and no court had determined that the accounts contained quasi-marital property, fraudulently transferred assets, or money otherwise belonging to Albert.

Patricia remains free to pursue those arguments. She must first obtain a court order establishing a legal basis for taking the money rather than relying on an affidavit incorrectly identifying Jenny as Albert’s spouse.

The panel reversed the trial court’s order and directed it to quash the May 2024 levies involving Jenny’s three Fidelity accounts and seven Citibank accounts. It also ordered Patricia to return all money she received through the improper seizures.

The ruling leaves Patricia’s $1.4 million divorce judgment against Albert intact. Its broader significance concerns how that judgment may be enforced against someone else’s property.

Even where money appears connected to a former spouse or an invalid marriage, a creditor cannot bypass the protections given to a third-party account holder. Ownership, fraudulent transfer, and quasi-marital property claims must be established before the funds are taken, not after.