Does the term 'invalid' or 'voidable' in the context of the alienation of a person's property under the California Family Law Act apply to a person whose property is subject to alienation under the same statute?

2. The words 'void' or 'invalid', when appearing in statutes which are not for the benefit of the public at large, are regarded as equivalent to 'voidable' where none other than a particular person or class of persons is the object of the statutory protection. In Gee v. Moore, 14 Cal. 472, 474--475, alienation by the husband only of homesteaded property was sustained although the statute declared that such alienation, without the wife's acknowledged signature, was invalid; where, in fact, the wife had died leaving no children and there was no one living whom the statute was designed to protect. The court pointed to the parallel with a holding that despite a statute declaring usurious mortgages to be utterly void, such mortgages are void only as against the mortgagor and those holding under him (p. 475).