to Wesley was legally impeded, under state law, their relationship became, at best, meretricious. See Lazzarevich, 200 P.2d at 55. We also conclude that Vergie’s argument that her marriage to Wesley should be considered presumptively valid to be without merit. It is an undisputed rule in California that: When a person has entered into two successive marriages, a presumption arises in favor of the validity of the second marriage, and the burden is upon the party attacking the validity of the second marriage to prove that the first marriage had not been dissolved by the death of a spouse or by divorce or had not been annulled at the time of the second marriage. Vargas v. Superior Court, 9 Cal.App.3d 470, 473, 88 Cal.Rptr. 281 (1970) (citation omitted); but see Tatum, 241 F.2d at 407 (<HOLDING>). Here, Vergie argues that the presumptive
holding that the burden rests upon the party seeking benefits to prove the injury sustained was the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of employment and the rule of liberal construction is not a substitute for the claimants burden of establishing his claim by a preponderance of the evidence holding that burden of demonstrating coverage rests with the insured holding that a defendant may challenge the validity of prior convictions during a sentencing hearing and that the burden to establish invalidity is on the challenging party holding that with two presumptively valid marriages in existence the ultimate burden rests on the party who advocates the second to prove the invalidity of the first holding that in a situation where the police have probable cause to arrest one party and reasonably mistake a second party for that first party the arrest of the second party is still a valid arrest