In Estate of DePasse (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 92, a superior court had granted an unopposed petition brought pursuant to section 103450 by the deceased DePasse's purported husband, Harris, who represented that they had married shortly before DePasse died and were unable to obtain a license in the time available. (DePasse, at pp. 96-97.) The issue of whether or not the superior court should have granted this petition was not before the appellate court. Rather, the court reviewed the trial court's denial of Harris's spousal property petition in a probate action, wherein the parties debated the disposition of DePasse's estate. (Id. at pp. 97-98.) The appellate court determined whether or not the "marriage" between DePasse and Harris was valid, and whether Harris's section 103450 petition cured the lack of a license. (Id. at p. 98.) The court held that issuance of a marriage license is a mandatory prerequisite to a valid marriage in California. (Id. at p. 102.) After reviewing the relevant statutes and procedures, the court stated: "According to the statutory scheme, there are five steps in the marriage process. First, the parties must consent. Second, the parties must obtain a license from the county clerk. Since the license and certificate of registry are combined into one form, the parties also obtain the certificate of registry at that time. Third, the marriage must be solemnized. Before solemnizing the marriage, the person conducting the ceremony must ensure that the parties have obtained a marriage license. Fourth, the person solemnizing the marriage must authenticate the marriage by signing the certificate of registry and arranging for at least one witness to sign the certificate. Finally, the person solemnizing the marriage must return the certificate of registry to the county clerk for filing. (DePasse, supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at p. 101.)" The DePasse court determined that several of the five steps in the marriage process had not been taken, and that the chaplain by performing the solemnization without regard for the licensing requirement, had exposed himself to criminal penalties pursuant to Penal Code section 360. (DePasse, supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at p. 101.)