University of Miami Law Review Volume 24 Number 1 Article 7 10-1-1969 Marriage Annulment - The Need for Legislation Beverly A. Rowan Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr Recommended Citation Beverly A. Rowan, Marriage Annulment - The Need for Legislation, 24 U. Miami L. Rev. 112 (1969) Available at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr/vol24/iss1/7 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Miami Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MARRIAGE ANNULMENT-THE NEED FOR LEGISLATION BEVERLY A. ROWAN* I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................... 112 II. JUSTIFICATION FOR THE ACTION .......................................... 114 III. THE FLORIDA POSITION .................................................. 114 IV. THE VOID-VOIDABLE DISTINCTION .......................................... 116 V . GROUNDS ................................................................ 118 A . Incest ............................................................... 118 B . Bigamy ............................................................. 119 C . Im potency .......................................................... 120 D. M ental Incompetency ................................................ 121 E. Intoxication or Influence of Drugs .................................... 122 F. Jest or D are ........................................................ 122 G. Incapacity Due to Non-Age .......................................... 123 H . Fraud ...... ......................................................... 124 I. Duress .............................................................. 126 V I. D EFENSES ............................................................... 127 VII. JURISDICTION ............................................................ 129 VIII. SERVICE OF PROCESS ...................................................... 130 IX. CONSEQUENCES .......................................................... 131 A. Custody, Support and Legitimacy of Children .......................... 131 B . A lim ony ............................................................ 132 C. Property Rights ..................................................... 133 X . CONCLUSION ............................................................. 134 A PROPOSED STATUTE ........................................................... 134 I. INTRODUCTION In the field of family law there is a very real difference between divorce and annulment. Divorce is generally granted for causes arising after the marriage ceremony, and it presupposes the existence of a valid marriage. Annulment is granted as a result of conditions existing at the time of the ceremony, and the marriage is void or voidable from the beginning. Annulment is a hazy, poorly-defined area in the field of mar- riage law; not only is there much confusion throughout the United States in the treatment of divorce and annulment, but the distinction between the two actions has also become increasingly blurred. The logical and traditional grounds employed in annulment actions are made grounds for divorce in many states. Nine states provide for divorce if the marriage is bigamous;' four jurisdictions grant divorce when the marriage is incestuous; 2 thirty-two states provide for the * Member of the Editorial Board, University of Miami Law Review. 1. ARK. STAT. ANN. § 34-1202 (1962); DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 13, § 1522(2) (1953) FLA. STAT. § 61.041(9) (1967); ILL. ANN. STAT. ch. 40, § 1 (Smith-Hurd Supp. 1969); MISS. CODE ANN. § 2735 (1957); Mo. ANN. STAT. § 452.010 (1952); OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 3105.01(A) (Page 1960); PA. STAT. ANN. tit. 23, § 10(b) (1955); TENN. CODE ANN. § 36-801(2) (1955). 2. FLA. STAT. § 61.041(1) (1967); GA. CODE ANN. § 30-102(1) (1952); MISS. CODE ANN. § 2735 (1957); PA. STAT. ANN. tit. 23, § 10(h)(2) (1955). COMMENTS granting of a divorce for impotency; 3 seven provide that divorce is the remedy in cases which involve fraudulent marriage contracts.' At least twelve states permit a husband to obtain a divorce when his wife was pregnant by another man at the time of the marriage without the hus- band's knowledge.8 Maryland and Rhode Island permit divorce for any reason which renders the marriage void ab initio,6 and Washington and Delaware allow divorce if one of the parties was incapable of consenting 7 to the marriage for lack of age. In most states there is a substantial difference between the number of divorces and annulments granted." Annulments accounted for only 3 percent of marriage dissolutions in the United States during 1963.' Probably one of the major reasons why there are relatively few annul- ments is that generally a woman seeking an annulment thereby relin- quishes her claim to alimony. Thus, though she might legitimately be entitled to such a remedy, she is compelled to resort to divorce in order to be awarded alimony. Annulment has been used extensively in a few states in order to 3. ALA. CODE tit. 34, § 20 (1959); ALASKA STAT. § 09.55.110 (1962); ARIz. REV. STAT. ANN. § 25-312(10) (1956); ARK. STAT. ANN. § 34-1202 (Supp. 1967); COLO. REV. STAT. ANN. § 46-1-1(b) (1963) ; FLA. STAT. § 61.041(2) (1967) ; GA. CODE ANN. § 30-102(3) (1952); ILL. ANN. STAT. ch. 40, § 1 (Smith-Hurd 1956); IND. ANN. STAT. § 3-1201(2) (1968); Ky. REV. STAT. § 403.020(1)(a) (1962); ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 19, § 691 (1964); MD. ANN. CODE art. 16, § 24 (1966); MASS. GEN. LAWS ANN. ch. 208, § 1 (1958); MIcH. COMP. LAWS ANN. § 552.6(2) (1967); MINN. STAT. ANN. § 518.06(2) (1969); MISS. CODE ANN. § 2735 (1957); Mo. ANN. STAT. § 452.010 (1952); NEB. REV. STAT. § 42-301(2) (1968); NEV. REV. STAT. § 125.010(1) (1967); N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. § 458: 7(I) (1968); N.M. STAT. ANN. § 22-7-1(3) (1953); N.C. GEN. STAT. § 50-5(2) (1966); OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 3105.01(D) (1960); OKLA. STAT. ANN. tit. 12, § 1271 (1961); ORE. REV. STAT. § 107.030(1) (1967); PA. STAT. ANN. tit. 23, § 10(1)(a) (1955); R.I. GEN. LAWS ANN. § 15-5-2 (1956); TENN. CODE ANN. § 36-801(1) (1955); UTAH CODE ANN. § 30-3-1(1) (1953); VA. CODE ANN. § 20-91(2) (1960); WASH. REV. CODE ANN. § 26.08.020(3) (1961); WYo. STAT. ANN. § 20-38 (1957). 4. CONN. GEN. STAT. REV. § 46-13 (1958); GA. CODE ANN. § 30-102(4) (1952); Ky. REV. STAT. § 403.020(2)(e) (1962); OHIo REV. CODE ANN. § 3105.01 (F) (1960); OKLA. STAT. ANN. tit. 12, § 1271 (1961) ; PA. STAT. ANN. tit. 23, § 10(g) (1955); WASH. REV. CODE ANN. § 26.08.020(1) (1961). 5. ALA. CODE tit. 34, § 21 (1958); ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 25-312(8) (1956); GA. CODE ANN. § 30-102(5) (1952); IOWA CODE ANN. § 598.9 (1946); Ky. REV. STAT. § 403.- 020(4) (a) (1962); Miss. CODE ANN. § 2735 (1957) ; N.M. STAT. ANN. § 22-7-1(4) (1953); N.C. GEN. STAT. § 50-5(3) (1966); OKLA. STAT. ANN. tit. 12, § 1271 (1961); TENN. CODE ANN. § 36-801(9) (1955); VA. CODE ANN. § 20-91(7) (1960); Wyo. STAT. ANN. § 20-38 (1957). The Kansas and Oklahoma statutes do not require that the husband be unaware of the wife's pregnancy by another at the time of the marriage. 6. MD. ANN. CODE art. 16, § 24 (1966); R.I. GEN. LAWS ANN. § 15-5-1 (1956). 7. DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 13, § 1522(7)(8) (1953); WASH. REV. CODE ANN. § 26.08.020(1) (1961). 8. For every annulment in the United States there are approximately 137 divorces. U.S. DEP'T or H.E.W., DIVORCE AND ANNULMENT: DETAILED STATISTICS FOR REPORTING AREAS 1956, 37, table 2 (Vital Statistics-Special Reports, Vol. 48, No. 2, 1958). In 1968, there were 31,367 divorces granted in Florida, as opposed to 253 annulments. BUREAU OF VITAL STATISTICS, FLORIDA STATE BD. OF HEALTH, DIVORCES AND ANNULMENTS BY CAUSE OF SEPARATION (1959-1968). 9. U.S. DEP'T OF H.E.W., PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DIVORCE STATISTICS ANALYSIS (1963). UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI LAW REVIEW [Vol. XXIV avoid strict divorce laws.' ° For example, in California remarriage by either party is prohibited for one year following the final decree of divorce." In New York, until recently, adultery was the only ground for divorce,' 2 and the guilty party in a divorce action could not remarry during the lifetime of the other spouse without obtaining permission from the court.' 8 However, in 1967 five additional grounds for divorce were provided by statute in that state,'4 and parties to a divorce are now free to remarry without restriction.' 5 Presumably, the divorce-annulment ratio in New York will undergo a corresponding shift. II. JUSTIFICATION FOR THE ACTION Annulment has a valid place in modern marriage law. The social stigma attached to divorce may constitute a significant burden to some. Although there has been a substantial increase in the number of divorces since the early part of this century,16 nevertheless disapproval of divorce still exists in large segments of our society. For example, there are religious objections to divorce; only about 100 Roman Catholic marriages a year are declared invalid by church courts in the United States, and barely 1000 a year from all over the world are declared invalid. 7 The number of Catholics affected by the impossibility of divorce in this country alone has been estimated at between three and five million individuals among some 46 million members of all ages.' 8 Although a civil annul- ment does not satisfy Catholic canon law, it may be preferable to some Catholics because it is theoretically more consistent with the religious