Close this search box.

Bigamous Spouse “Estopped” From Claiming Share of Estate

Print Article


Jessie Lee Anderson died in California in 1996. Ms. Anderson had not prepared a will, and so her estate would pass to her heirs at law. Under California law as it applied to her circumstances, that would normally mean that half her estate would go to her family, and the other half to her surviving spouse.

Ms. Anderson’s marital history, however, was less than clear. In 1955, she had married Orange Pierson, who was now claiming half her estate. In 1958, Pierson and Anderson had separated; they had no children, and apparently neither ever filed for a divorce.

In 1978, Jessie Lee Anderson had married for a second time. On the application for a marriage license she signed (along with new husband Clarence Anderson), Ms. Anderson swore that she had gotten divorced in 1958 in San Francisco County, California. A later search of the County’s records, however, revealed that there was no such divorce.

During the fifteen years Jessie Lee and Clarence Anderson were married, they had no children. Mr. Anderson had died in 1983; Ms. Anderson never remarried.

For his part, Orange Pierson had also remarried after he and Ms. Anderson separated. He had lived with Daisy Lee Pierson since shortly after the separation, and he married her in 1993 (after having had five children together). Mr. Anderson’s marriage license application recited that he had never been married before. He claimed that he had made this “obviously false” statement because he and Ms. Anderson had been separated for 35 years and he didn’t want to embarrass anyone.

Ms. Anderson’s estate consisted primarily of her residence, purchased during Mr. Anderson’s life and paid for (at least partly) with his contributions to the community. Mr. Pierson now sought to recover half of that estate. He argued that both of their subsequent marriage were invalid, and that his marriage to Ms. Anderson continued despite the 38 years they had been separated.

The California Court of Appeals disagreed. The judges noted that Mr. Pierson had sworn under oath that he had never been married when it suited him to marry Daisy Lee Pierson, and decided that he could not choose to “blow hot and cold” on the question of the validity of his marriage. In legal terms, he was estopped from now asserting that he remained married to Ms. Anderson.

In reaching its conclusion, the court analogized to earlier cases it had decided. In one, for example, a woman questioned the validity of a foreign divorce after thirty years, despite the subsequent remarriage of her husband and his payment of alimony for the entire time. In that case, the California courts refused to permit the “wife” to “sleep on” her rights, waiting until her “husband’s” death to claim half the property he had accumulated with his new wife.

Mr. Pierson, for his part, also had precedent to cite. In another earlier California case, the court had ruled that a husband’s infidelity during his deceased wife’s lifetime did not preclude him from inheriting from her estate. But the Pierson/Anderson case, said the court, is different; “principles of equity,” they said, “demand that Pierson be estopped from asserting rights in decedent’s estate.”Estate of Anderson, December 23, 1997.

At least under Arizona law, Ms. Anderson could have minimized the problems with her estate quite simply. It is perfectly legal to disinherit spouses completely; if Ms. Anderson had written a will leaving nothing to Mr. Pierson the cost of contested court proceedings might have been avoided. Of course, we can not be certain whether Ms. Anderson genuinely believed that she had been divorced from Mr. Pierson, but assuming she knew that she had not, a simple will might have saved her estate many times its cost.

Stay up to date

Subscribe to our Newsletter to get our takes on some of the situations families, seniors, and individuals with disabilities find themselves in. These posts help guide you in the decision making process and point out helpful tips and nuances to take advantage of. Enter your email below to have our entries sent directly to your inbox!

Robert B. Fleming


Robert Fleming is a Fellow of both the American College of Trust and Estate Counsel and the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys. He has been certified as a Specialist in Estate and Trust Law by the State Bar of Arizona‘s Board of Legal Specialization, and he is also a Certified Elder Law Attorney by the National Elder Law Foundation. Robert has a long history of involvement in local, state and national organizations. He is most proud of his instrumental involvement in the Special Needs Alliance, the premier national organization for lawyers dealing with special needs trusts and planning.

Robert has two adult children, two young grandchildren and a wife of over fifty years. He is devoted to all of them. He is also very fond of Rosalind Franklin (his office companion corgi), and his homebound cat Muninn. He just likes people, their pets and their stories.

Elizabeth N.R. Friman


Elizabeth Noble Rollings Friman is a principal and licensed fiduciary at Fleming & Curti, PLC. Elizabeth enjoys estate planning and helping families navigate trust and probate administrations. She is passionate about the fiduciary work that she performs as a trustee, personal representative, guardian, and conservator. Elizabeth works with CPAs, financial professionals, case managers, and medical providers to tailor solutions to complex family challenges. Elizabeth is often called upon to serve as a neutral party so that families can avoid protracted legal conflict. Elizabeth relies on the expertise of her team at Fleming & Curti, and as the Firm approaches its third decade, she is proud of the culture of care and consideration that the Firm embodies. Finding workable solutions to sensitive and complex family challenges is something that Elizabeth and the Fleming & Curti team do well.

Amy F. Matheson


Amy Farrell Matheson has worked as an attorney at Fleming & Curti since 2006. A member of the Southern Arizona Estate Planning Council, she is primarily responsible for estate planning and probate matters.

Amy graduated from Wellesley College with a double major in political science and English. She is an honors graduate of Suffolk University Law School and has been admitted to practice in Arizona, Massachusetts, New York, and the District of Columbia.

Prior to joining Fleming & Curti, Amy worked for American Public Television in Boston, and with the international trade group at White & Case, LLP, in Washington, D.C.

Amy’s husband, Tom, is an astronomer at NOIRLab and the Head of Time Domain Services, whose main project is ANTARES. Sadly, this does not involve actual time travel. Amy’s twin daughters are high school students; Finn, her Irish Red and White Setter, remains a puppy at heart.

Famous people's wills

Matthew M. Mansour


Matthew is a law clerk who recently earned his law degree from the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law. His undergraduate degree is in psychology from the University of California, Santa Barbara. Matthew has had a passion for advocacy in the Tucson community since his time as a law student representative in the Workers’ Rights Clinic. He also has worked in both the Pima County Attorney’s Office and the Pima County Public Defender’s Office. He enjoys playing basketball, caring for his cat, and listening to audiobooks narrated by the authors.