Reported / Citable
Background
Albert Greely was ordered to pay his first wife Patricia $1.4 million in an equalization payment and spousal support arrears from their divorce. Meanwhile, Albert had married Jenny Lu in 2020 while still married to Patricia—making the second marriage bigamous and void under Family Code section 2201.
When Albert failed to pay, Patricia obtained a writ of execution and levied on bank accounts at Citibank and Fidelity. She used California’s Enforcement of Judgments Law (EJL), which normally requires a court order to levy accounts held solely in a third party’s name—but includes an exception allowing the levy of a judgment debtor’s spouse’s accounts with just an affidavit. Patricia filed an affidavit claiming Jenny was Albert’s spouse, and over $380,000 was swept from Jenny’s personal savings, retirement accounts, and a joint account with her son.
Jenny quickly had the bigamous marriage annulled and challenged the levies, arguing she was never Albert’s legal spouse and the levies were therefore invalid. The trial court disagreed, ruling that the annulment did not undermine the levies. Jenny appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth District reversed. The court held that because a bigamous marriage is “illegal and void” under Family Code section 2201, it is “invalid for all purposes from the moment of its inception, whether or not it has been so declared in a court of law.” Since Jenny was never Albert’s legal spouse, the affidavit-based spousal exception under Code of Civil Procedure section 700.160(b)(2) did not apply, and the levies on her separately held accounts were invalid.
The court rejected Patricia’s argument that the annulment was only binding between Jenny and Albert under Family Code section 2212(b). That statute applies to voidable marriages, not void marriages like those based on bigamy. The invalidity of a void marriage may be raised collaterally in any proceeding. The court also rejected arguments that Jenny should have filed a third-party claim rather than a motion to quash, holding that the trial court properly entertained the challenge under Code of Civil Procedure section 187 and its inherent authority. Finally, the court ordered Patricia to return all improperly levied funds.
Key Takeaways
- The spousal exception to the court-order requirement for bank account levies under CCP section 700.160(b)(2) does not apply when the underlying marriage is void due to bigamy.
- A void marriage is invalid from inception for all purposes and its invalidity can be raised collaterally—unlike a voidable marriage, which is valid until formally annulled.
- Although the EJL does not provide a specific statutory mechanism to quash a defective notice of levy on a deposit account, courts have inherent authority and authority under CCP section 187 to entertain such challenges.
- Judgment creditors who seek to levy accounts held solely in a third party’s name must obtain a court order first unless the spousal exception genuinely applies—and must verify the marriage is legally valid.
- When levies are reversed on appeal, the reviewing court may order restitution of disbursed funds under CCP section 908.
Why It Matters
This case is a cautionary tale for judgment creditors and collections attorneys who rely on the spousal exception to shortcut the court-order requirement for levying third-party bank accounts. The court made clear that a judgment creditor who uses a defective affidavit of marriage—even one based on an apparently valid marriage—does so at their own risk. If the marriage turns out to be void, the levies are invalid and the creditor must return the funds.
For family law practitioners, the decision reinforces the sharp distinction between void and voidable marriages in California. The invalidity of a bigamous marriage cannot be limited to the parties who obtained the annulment—it extends to all proceedings, including judgment enforcement by third parties. The decision also signals that courts will use their inherent powers to address gaps in the EJL’s procedural framework, which does not provide a specific mechanism for third parties to challenge defective levy affidavits.