Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Libraries
Copyright © 2000-2008, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. All rights
reserved.
Annulment of
Marriages and Civil
Unions in Connecticut
A Guide to Resources in the Law Library
· “An annulment shall be granted if the marriage [or civil union] is void or voidable under the laws of this state or of the state in which the marriage was performed.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-40 (2007). [“. . . wherever in the general statutes the terms . . . ‘marriage’ is used or defined, a civil union shall be included in such use or definition. CONN. GEN. STATS. § 46b-38oo (2008 supp.) (Effective October 1, 2005).” CONN. GEN. STATS. § 46b-38oo (2008 supp.) (Effective October 1, 2005). See Full Text for exceptions]
· “A decree of annulment . . . shall give the parties the status of unmarried persons and they may marry again.” Conn. Gen. Stat. (2007) § 46b-67(b).
· “We recognize that an annulment and a dissolution of marriage differ fundamentally. An annulment renders the marriage void ab initio [from the beginning] while a dissolution is based upon a valid marriage which terminates as of the date of the judgment of dissolution.” Durham v. Miceli, 15 Conn. App. 96, 543 A.2d 286 (1988).
· “Divorce and annulment differ fundamentally. The former is based upon a valid marriage and a cause for terminating it which arises subsequently. Davis v. Davis, 119 Conn. 194, 196, 175 A. 574. The latter proceeds upon the theory that the marriage is void ab initio.” Mazzei v. Cantales, 142 Conn. 173, 178, 112 A.2d 205 (1955).
· Incorporation by reference: “Wherever in the general statutes the terms ‘spouse’, ‘family’, ‘immediate family’, ‘dependent’, ‘next of kin’ or any other term that denotes the spousal relationship are used or defined, a party to a civil union shall be included in such use or definition, and wherever in the general statutes, except sections 7-45 and 17b-137a, subdivision (4) of section 45a-727a, and sections 46b-20 to 46b-34, inclusive, 46b-38nn and 46b-150d, the term ‘marriage’ is used or defined, a civil union shall be included in such use or definition. Wherever in the general statutes, except sections 46a-60, 46a-64, 46a-64c and 46a-66, the term ‘marital status’ is used or defined, civil union status shall be included in such use or definition. CONN. GEN. STATS. § 46b-38oo (2008 supp.) (Effective October 1, 2005).
· “Parties to a civil union shall have all the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under law, whether derived from the general statutes, administrative regulations or court rules, policy, common law or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses in a marriage, which is defined as the union of one man and one woman.” CONN. GEN. STATS. § 46b-38nn (2007) (Effective October 1, 2005).
Contents
§ 1 Effect, History and Definition
§ 4.2 Service of Process and Venue
§ 6 Out of State and Foreign Annulment
Tables
Table 2 Sample Proof of Grounds for Annulment
Table 3 Concealment or misrepresentation
Table 4 Unreported Connecticut Decisions on Annulment of Marriage
Figures
Figure 1 Complaint for Annulment (Form 504.5)
|
SCOPE: |
· Bibliographic resources relating to the legal effect and history of an annulment in Connecticut. Including: how annulments differ from dissolutions and legal separations.
|
|
CURRENCY: |
· 2008 Edition
|
|
DEFINITION: |
· “A decree of annulment . . . shall give the parties the status of unmarried persons and they may marry again.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-67(b) (2007). · “We recognize that an annulment and a dissolution of marriage differ fundamentally. An annulment renders the marriage void ab initio [from the beginning] while a dissolution is based upon a valid marriage which terminates as of the date of the judgment of dissolution.” Durham v. Miceli, 15 Conn. App. 96, 543 A.2d 286 (1988).. · “A direct action to annul a marriage not only affects the status of the marriage itself but may also affect property rights arising from this status.” Perlstein v. Perlstein, 26 Conn. Sup. 257, 258, 217 A.2d 481 (1966).
|
|
STATUTES: |
· Conn. Gen. Stat. (2007) § 46b-67(b) “Neither the ninety-day period specified in this section nor the six-month period referred to in section 46b-53 shall apply in actions for annulment and the court may proceed on any cause of action for annulment in the manner generally applicable in civil actions.”
|
|
CASES: |
· Bernstein v. Bernstein, 25 Conn. Supp. 239, 240, 201 A.2d 660 (1964).“The two causes of action [dissolution and annulment] are distinguishing in that a divorce is based on a valid marriage and a cause which arises subsequently for terminating it, while an annulment is decreed on the theory that the marriage is void ad initio [from its inception].” · Perlstein v. Perlstein, 26 Conn. Sup. 257, 260, 217 A.2d 481 (1966). “An action to annul a bigamous marriage may be brought either in the lifetime of the parties or after the death of the supposed husband or wife.”
|
|
WEST KEY NUMBERS:
|
· Marriage #57 Annulment. Nature and form of remedy. |
|
TEXTS & TREATISES:
|
· 7 Arnold H. Rutkin and Kathleen A. Hogan, Connecticut Practice Series. Family Law And Practice with Forms (2d ed. 1999). Chapter 12. Annulment in general §12.2 Annulment distinguished from divorce · Lynn D. Wardle et al., Contemporary Family Law: Principles, Policy and Practice (1988). § 16:01 Definition and history of annulment
|
|
ENCYCLOPEDIAS:
|
· 4 Am. Jur. 2d Annulment of Marriage §1 (1995). · 55 C.J.S. Marriage §§ 63-84 (1998).
|
|
PERIODICALS: |
· C.E.P. Davies, Annulment of Marriage, 27 Connecticut Bar Journal 41 (1953). Historical background. Distinction between void and voidable marriages, pp. 61-64. · Harriet S. Daggett, Annulment of a Marriage in Connecticut, XXV Connecticut Bar Journal 1 (March 1951). History traced through case law, 1803 - 1940.
|
|
COMPILER: |
Lawrence Cheeseman , Supervising Law Librarian, Connecticut Judicial Department, Law Library at Middletown, One Court Street, Middletown, CT 06457. (860) 343‑6560. EMAIL
|
A Guide to Resources in the Law Library
|
SCOPE: |
Bibliographic resources relating to the grounds for granting an annulment in Connecticut
|
|
SEE ALSO:
|
|
|
CURRENCY: |
· 2008 Edition
|
|
DEFINITION: |
· “It is well-established law of this state that no marriage performed in this state is to be held void or voidable except for some ground recognized at common law or for some ground which a statute expressly provides shall be ground for annulment.” Manning v. Manning, 16 Conn. Supp. 461, 461-462 (1950).
|
|
STATUTES: |
· Conn. Gen. Stat. (2007) § 46b‑21. Kindred who may not wed § 46b-22. Who may join persons in marriage § 46b-24. License. Period of validity. Penalty for solemnization without license. Validity of marriage ceremony § 46b-29. Marriage of persons under conservatorship § 46b-30. Marriage of minors. § 46b‑40(b). “An annulment shall be granted if the marriage is void or voidable under the laws of this state or of the state in which the marriage was performed.” § 46b‑48. Dissolution of marriage or annulment upon conviction of crime against chastity; procedure. § 46b-38cc (2007). Kindred prohibited from entering into civil union. “(c) A civil union between persons prohibited from entering into a civil union pursuant to subsection (a) or (b) of this section is void. (EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 2005).
|
|
FORMS:
|
· 2 Connecticut Practice Book (1997). Complaint for Annulment, Form 504.5 · 1A Douglass B. Wright and John H. Yeomans, Connecticut Legal Forms (1983). Complaint for Annulment, Form 1101.5 · 29 COA 431 (1992). Cause of action to annul marriage. § 42. Sample complaint § 42.10. Sample complaint to annul marriage where there are no children or property § 42.20. Sample complaint to annul "mock" marriage · 1C Am. Jur. Pleading & Practice Annulment Of Marriage (2003 rev.). § 4. Complaint, petition, or declaration—To annul marriage—No children or property § 12. Complaint, petition, or declaration—To annul marriage—Mock marriage § 21. Complaint, petition, or declaration—To annul marriage on ground of prior existing marriage—Absence of children or property § 22. Complaint, petition, or declaration—To annul marriage on ground of prior existing marriage—Absence of children—Property accumulated § 23. Complaint, petition, or declaration—To annul marriage on ground of prior existing marriage—Divorce decree not final § 36. Complaint, petition, or declaration—To annul incestuous marriage § 37. Complaint, petition, or declaration—To annul incestuous marriage—Plaintiff not pregnant § 41. Complaint, petition, or declaration—To annul marriage on ground of fraud—Undisclosed intent not to cohabit § 69. Complaint, petition, or declaration—To annul marriage on ground of physical incapacity—General form
|
|
RECORDS & BRIEFS:
|
· Connecticut Supreme Court Records & Briefs, Singh v. Singh, 213 Conn. 637 (November 1989). Complaint. |
|
CASES: |
· Brennauer v. Brennauer, No. FA 02-0124680S (Super. Ct. J.D. New London at Norwich, Nov. 14, 2002) “General Statute § 46b-40 (b) states that ‘an annulment shall be granted if the marriage is void or voidable under the laws of this state or of the state in which the marriage was performed.’ ‘It is the well-established law of this state that no marriage performed in this state is to be held void or voidable except for some ground recognized at common law or for some ground which a statute expressly provides shall be ground for annulment.’ Manning v. Manning, 16 Conn. Sup. 461, 461-62 (1950). ‘There are statutory grounds for annulment. General Statute§ 46b-21 (Marriage of certain kindred); § 46b-22 (Marriage attempted to be celebrated by persons other than those listed); § 46b-24 (Marriage performed in Connecticut without a marriage license); § 46b-29 (Marriage of persons under conservatorship or guardianship); § 46b-30 (Marriages of minors); § 45b-48 (Conviction of an offense against chastity)." Ross v. Ross, Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford, Docket No. FA97-0162587 (1998) (Tierney, J.) (22 Conn.L.Rptr. 637, 638.)” · Singh v. Singh, 213 Conn. 637, 656, 569 A.2d 1112 (1990). "In conclusion, a marriage between persons related to one another as half-uncle and half-niece is void under General Statutes 46b-21 and 53a-191 as incestuous." · Fattibene v. Fattibene, 183 Conn. 433, 439, 441 A.2d 3 (1981). “. . . whether fraud in a case is sufficient to justify an annulment . . . .” · Carabetta v. Carabetta , 182 Conn. 344, 349, 438 A.2d 109 (1980). “In the absence of express language in the governing statute declaring a marriage void for failure to observe a statutory requirement, this court has held in an unbroken line of cases . . . that such a marriage, through imperfect, is dissoluble rather than void.” · Perlstein v. Perlstein, 26 Conn. Supp. 257, 259, 217 A.2d 481 (1966). “A bigamous marriage is not merely voidable; it is void.” · Bernstein v. Bernstein, 25 Conn. Supp. 239, 240-241, 201 A.2d 660 (1964). “The concealed intent not to assume the duties of the marital relationship is sufficient cause for an annulment.” · Hannibal v. Hannibal, 23 Conn. Sup. 201, 202, 179 A.2d 838 (1962). “The plaintiff concedes that there is no case in Connecticut which holds that a fraudulent representation by a wife that she is willing to bear children is a sufficient cause to declare a marriage void.” · Catalano v. Catalano, 148 Conn. 288, 291, 170 A.2d 726(1961). “It is generally accepted rule that a marriage valid where the ceremony is performed is valid everywhere . . . . There are, however, certain exceptions to that rule, including one which regards as invalid incestuous marriages between persons so closely related that their marriage is contrary to the strong public policy of the domicil though valid where celebrated.” · Avery v. Avery, 16 Conn. Sup. 418, 419, 118 A.2d 629 (1949). “Inasmuch as, in this state, fraudulent representation as an inducement to marriage is looked upon as a ground for divorce rather than annulment, it is extremely doubtful that, under our law, any marriage is made voidable by reason of a fraudulent representation of any nature. However that may be, it certainly is true that if a fraudulent representation is to be one which makes the marriage voidable it must be at least as serious as those which give ground for divorce for fraudulent contract. That is, it must be one which goes to the very essence of the marriage relationship.” · Schibi v. Schibi, 136 Conn. 196, 198, 69 A.2d 831 (1949). "The sole question presented to the court for determination was whether the marriage was void because there was no mutual consent of the parties." · Manning v. Manning, 16 Conn. Supp. 461 (1950). “lack of parental consent does not render a marriage performed in this state either void or voidable." · State ex rel. Felson v. Allen, 129 Conn. 427, 29 A.2d 306 (1942). Marriage ceremony performed by unauthorized person. · Nerini v. Nerini, 11 Conn. Supp. 361, 367 (1943). “My conclusion on the law, then, is this: all misrepresentations concerning one’s health and fitness are immaterial unless they involve the essentialia to the marital relation such as a physical impediment making impossible the performance of the duties and obligations of the relation or rendering its assumption and continuance dangerous to the health or the other spouse or capable of affecting the health of their offspring." · Doe v. Doe, 11 Conn. Supp. 157 (1942). Record of the standard laboratory blood test. · Davis v. Davis, 119 Conn. 194, 198, 175 A. 574 (1934). "Whether the marriage of the parties to this action is to be declared void because of a lack of consent to the contract, we hold must depend upon the law of New York, in which State the marriage ceremony was performed." · Lyman v. Lyman, 90 Conn. 399, 403, 97 A. 312 (1916). “. . . the courts are practically agreed in holding that antenuptial pregnancy by another man, if concealed by the wife from the husband, who was himself innocent of improper relations with her, is a fraud upon him justifying a divorce or annulment of the marriage, as the appropriate remedy in the jurisdiction may be.”
|
|
WEST KEY NUMBERS:
|
· Marriage #58 “Grounds” |
|
DIGESTS: |
· Dowling’s Digest: Marriage · Connecticut Family Law Citations: Annulment of Marriage
|
|
ENCYCLOPEDIAS: |
· 4 AM. JUR. 2D Annulment of Marriage §§2-33 (1995). A. In general B. Unlawful marriages C. Fraud D. Duress E. Physical or mental incapacity · 52 AM. JUR. 2D Marriage (2000). §§ 19-23. Mental capacity §§ 24-25. Physical capacity §§ 26-28. Consent §§ 29-35. Formal requirements §§ 51-54. Relationship of parties; Incest §§ 55-61. Prior marriage §§ 65-76. Validity of particular marriages with foreign aspects. · 55 C.J.S. Marriage §65 (1998). · 1C Am. Jur. Pleading & Practice Annulment of Marriage (2003 rev.). · John Francis Major, Annotation, Annulment of Marriage, 42 POF2d 665 (1985). · James Lockhart, Cause Of Action To Annul Marriage, 29 COA 431 (1992). · Audrey W. Collins, Annotation, Sexual Intercourse Between Persons Related by Half Blood As Incest, 34 ALR5th 723 (1995). · David E. Rigney, Annotation, Power Of Incompetent Spouse’s Guardian Or Representative To Sue For Granting Or Vacation Of Divorce Or Annulment Of Marriage Or To Make Compromise Or Settlement In Such Suit, 32 ALR5th 673 (1995). · Jay M. Zitter, Annotation, Homosexuality, Transvestism, And Similar Sexual Practices As Grounds For Annulment Of Marriage, 68 ALR4th 1069 (1989). · Annotation, Spouse’s Secret Intention Not To Abide By Written Antenuptial Agreement Relating To Financial Matters As Ground For Annulment, 66 ALR3d 1282 (1975). · David B. Perlmutter, Annotation, Incapacity For Sexual Intercourse As Ground For Annulment, 52 ALR3d 589 (1973). · Mary J. Cavins, Annotation, What Constitutes Mistake In The Identity Of One Of The Parties To Warrant Annulment Of Marriage, 50 ALR3d 1295 (1973). · Ferdinand S. Tinio, Annotation, Annulment Of Later Marriage As Reviving Prior Husband’s Obligations Under Alimony Decree Or Separation Agreement, 45 ALR3d 1033 (1972). · Annotation, Concealment Of Or Misrepresentation As To Prior Marital Status As Ground For Annulment Of Marriage, 15 ALR3d 759 (1967). · Annotation, Mental Incompetency Of Defendant At Time Of Action As Precluding Annulment Of Marriage, 97 ALR2d 483 (1964). · Annotation, Concealed Premarital Unchastity Or Parenthood As Ground Of Divorce Or Annulment, 64 ALR2d 742 (1959). · Annotation, What Constitutes Intoxication Sufficient To Warrant Annulment Of Marriage, 57 ALR2d 1250 (1958). · Annotation, Refusal Of Sexual Intercourse As Ground For Annulment, 28 ALR2d 499 (1953). · Annotation, What Constitutes Duress Sufficient To Warrant Divorce Or Annulment Of Marriage, 16 ALR2d 1430 (1951). · Annotation, Cohabitation Of Persons Ceremonially Married After Learning Of Facts Negativing Dissolution Of Previous Marriage Of One, As Affecting Right To Annulment, 4 ALR2d 542 (1949).
|
|
TEXTS & TREATISES:
|
· 7 Arnold H. Rutkin et al. Connecticut Practice Series. Family Law And Practice with Forms (2d ed.1999). Chapter 13. Grounds for annulment § 13.1. In general § 13.2. Consanguinity or affinity § 13.3. Bigamous marriage § 13.4. Incompetence § 13.5. Age of parties § 13.6. Defects in marriage ceremony or license § 13.7. Intentions of the parties—Fraud, force or duress § 13.8. Concealment or misrepresentation of facts or circumstances · Homer H. Clark, Law of Domestic Relations in the United States, (2nd ed. 1987). See index entries under annulment. · Joyce Hens Green et al. Dissolution of Marriage (1986). §3.01 Annulment · Benjamin M. Becker, Legal Checklists (1966), Checklist 9‑1.
|
|
COMPILER: |
Lawrence Cheeseman , Supervising Law Librarian, Connecticut Judicial Department, Law Library at Middletown, One Court Street, Middletown, CT 06457. (860) 343‑6560. EMAIL
|
|
Grounds |
Rutkin* |
COA** |
|
Bigamous marriage |
§13.3 |
§§7-8 |
|
Consangunity or affinity |
§13.2 |
§9 |
|
Defects in marriage ceremony |
§13.6 |
§22 |
|
Duress or undue influence |
§13.7 |
§13 |
|
Fraud |
§13.7 |
§§14-21 |
|
Incompetence—mental |
§13.4 |
§11 |
|
Incompetence—physical |
§13.8 |
§12 |
|
Misrepresentation, concealment |
§13.8 |
§§16-19, 21 |
|
Nonage |
§13.5 |
§10 |
* 7 Arnold H. Rutkin and Kathleen A. Hogan, Connecticut Practice Series. Family Law And Practice with Forms (2d ed.1999).
** James Lockhart, Cause Of Action To Annul Marriage, 29 C.O.A. 431 (1992).
Table 2 Sample Proof of Grounds for Annulment
42 POF2d 665
|
Concealed intent not to consummate marriage |
§§ 23-24 |
|
Fraudulent failure to disclose prior undissolved marriage |
§§ 18-20 |
|
Fraudulent misrepresentation of paternity |
§§ 13-16 |
|
Marriage entered into under duress |
§§ 38-40 |
|
Marriage fraudulently induced to obtain permanent resident visa or “green card” |
§§ 34-37 |
|
Marriage induced by concealment of impotency |
§§ 31-33 |
|
Mental incapacity to marry due to excessive intoxication |
§§ 41-45 |
|
Wife’s concealment of sterility |
§§ 25-30 |
Table 3 Concealment or misrepresentation
|
Concealment or Misrepresentation as Grounds for Annulment of Marriage or Civil Union Selected Cases
|
|
|
Rice v. Monteleone, No. FA02-0563144S (Conn. Super. Ct., New London, Feb. 25, 2004), 2004 WL 503689. |
“In essence, the plaintiff's claims, which form the bases of her request for an annulment, are that the defendant lied to her in his assertions of love and affection and married her for her money. Even if one assumes for the sake of argument that those claims were proven, they are not sufficient for the entry of an order of annulment.” |
|
DaSilva v. DaSalva, No. 02 0470290 (Conn. Super. Ct., New Haven, April 21, 2003), 2003 WL 21037549. |
“The Wife alleged that the Husband had married her for a green card, that he did not contribute to the household financially, that he was not supportive of her, that he was insulting to her, that he did not spend time with her, and that he referred to his family in Brazil as his real family. The only real issue before the court is the allegation regarding the green card. All the other allegations arose after the marriage and are best addressed through a dissolution, not an annulment. They may well be indicta of the allegation, but their mere recitation do not make them evidence or proof. Therefore, the remaining issue before the court is whether or not this marriage is voidable based upon the reason claimed by the Wife.”
“From the evidence presented by the Wife at the trial, it is not sufficiently clear that the Husband married the Wife for a green card. The Wife and her two witnesses testified that: the Wife and the Husband had had sexual relations; the Husband contributed financially to the household, although not at the level of contribution that the Wife thought proper; that the Wife and the Husband lived together as husband and wife; the Husband had performed repairs to the marital residence. The Wife and her two witnesses also testified that the Husband: was verbally abusive; unsympathetic to her medical needs; ignored her and her needs; did not take her out with him; did not want to spend time with her; spoke Portuguese in her presence thereby excluding her from conversations. The wife did not sustain her burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that the conditions leading up to and surrounding the marriage render the marriage void or voidable.”
|
|
Brennauer v. Brennauer, No. FA 02-0124680S (Conn. Super. Ct., Milford, Nov. 14, 2002), 2002 WL 31687423. |
· “Counts one, three, four and five seek an annulment of the marriage on the following grounds, respectively: that the defendant had determined prior to the marriage never to cohabit or consummate the marriage and that if the plaintiff had known this, he never would have entered into the marriage; that the defendant created fraud upon the deceived plaintiff in that she concealed facts which would have affected the plaintiffs decision to enter into the marriage; that the defendant lacked the requisite intent to be married and misrepresented her intentions regarding the ceremony; and that the marriage ceremony itself was defective.” · “In count three, the plaintiff is seeking an annulment on the ground that the defendant created a fraud upon him and concealed facts that if known would have prevented him from entering into the marriage.” Ibid. · “In count five, the plaintiff is seeking an annulment on the ground that the ceremony was defective and therefore the marriage is void.” · “The court grants a dissolution of the marital union based upon irretrievable breakdown and declares the parties to be single and unmarried. The plaintiff failed to sustain his burden of proof in his claim for annulment.”
|
|
Hardy v. Hardy, No. FA 95 57392 S (Conn. Super. Ct., Rockville, Nov. 7, 1995), 1995 WL 669153. |
“The plaintiff claims that this marriage is voidable because the defendant fraudulently led her to believe he earned $22,000 per year when he only earned $16,000; that he had no outstanding bills when he did; that he failed to pay her for the cost of being added to her medical plan as he promised and that the marriage was not consummated. There was insufficient evidence to prove the defendant fraudulently made any of the representations alleged, and he disputes that the marriage was not consummated.”
|
|
Roby v. Roby, No. FA94-0245099 (Conn. Super. Ct., Meriden , May 19, 1994). |
“The plaintiff claims the misrepresentation of the defendant's status as a father of two children warrants a finding by the court that the ". . . marriage is void or voidable under the laws of this state. . ." General Statutes 46b-40(b). However, such misrepresentation was specifically addressed in Gordon vs. Gordon, 11 Conn. Sup. 302 (1942) where the court found the defendant's failure to reveal he had four other children in addition to the one he admitted was insufficient as a matter of law to conclude the marriage was void. See also, Fattibene vs. Fattibene, 183 Conn. 433 (1981).”
|
|
Sinojia v. Sinojia, No. 113953 (Conn. Super. Ct., Waterbury, Oct. 3, 1994) 1994 WL 551275. |
“It is not sufficiently clear that the defendant entered into this marriage solely to gain access to the U.S.A. via a visa as an alien relative. Since clear and convincing evidence is necessary to prove fraudulent misrepresentation, the court concludes that the plaintiff's evidence falls short. The plaintiff's complaint for annulment is denied.” |
|
Gregor v. Kamerling, No. FA 89-0257042-S (Conn. Super. Ct., New Haven, Aug. 5, 1992), 7 CSCR 1018, 1992 WL 201781. |
“The court finds first that there was no concealment, and finds, further, that even if there has been such concealment, that it did not prevent some essential purpose of the marriage.” |
|
Phillips v. Dame, No. 518815 (Conn. Super. Ct., New London, Jul. 11, 1991), 6 CSCR 718, 1991 WL 131732.
|
“Failure to consummate the marriage does not in and of itself constitute grounds for the granting of an annulment.” |
|
Fattibene v. Fattibene, 183 Conn. 433, 437, 441 A.2d 3 (1981). |
“In the counterclaim to the complaint, the defendant sought an annulment of the marriage based on the plaintiff's fraudulent nondisclosure at the time of the marriage of her prior marital status and of the previous birth of a child. Although there is evidence in the record to the contrary, the defendant alleges that he did not learn of the nondisclosed facts until the commencement of this action, over twenty-five years after the wedding ceremony, and never condoned the plaintiff's fraud or cohabitated with her after discovering it. The trial court decided that a valid marriage existed between the parties and dissolved it, rather than declare it null and void. The defendant claims on appeal that the trial court erred.”
“The trial court did not err when it failed to grant the defendant's claim for an annulment based on the plaintiff's nondisclosures or the alleged invalid divorce decree.” (p. 440).
|
|
Bernstein v. Bernstein, 25 Conn. Sup. 239, 240-241, 201 A.2d 660 (1964). |
“To warrant the annulment of a marriage, the cause must be such as goes to the essence of the marriage contract. Consent of the participants is a necessary condition to the creation of a valid marriage relationship, and there must be an intention of the parties to enter into the marriage status. Davis v. Davis, 119 Conn. 194. The concealed intent not to assume the duties of the marital relationship is sufficient cause for an annulment.”
|
|
Cocco v. Cocco, 23 Conn. Sup. 275, 276, 181 A. 2d 266 (1962). |
· “Plaintiff claims that the defendant's Mexican divorce is a nullity, hence that defendant was still married to his first wife when plaintiff married him, and that her own marriage is therefore bigamous and void · “In the opinion of the court, there are two main grounds requiring the denial of the annulment. The first one relates to the legal power of the plaintiff to attack the divorce decree. Since she was not a party to the Mexican divorce proceedings, she is a stranger making a collateral attack on the decree.” (p. 277) · “As to plaintiff's legal power to make the attack, even if it be assumed to the contrary, there is no sufficient proof warranting the court, in its opinion, in finding, as claimed by plaintiff, that the present defendant ‘never established a legal domicil’ in Mexico, and that ‘he went to Mexico for the sole purpose of obtaining a divorce.’” (p. 278).
|
Figure 1: Complaint for Annulment (Form 504.5)
Complaint for Annulment
1. The plaintiff (or defendant) whose maiden name was and the defendant (or plaintiff) intermarried on (date) at
2. (Set forth reasons why marriage was invalid or should be annulled)
3. (Set forth names and birthdate of any minor child born to the wife since the marriage, if any, and other information required by § 25-2(b)).
The plaintiff claims
1. An annulment of said marriage
2. Restoration of her maiden name
3. Lying-in expenses incurred in the future birth of any child issue of this marriage.
4. Custody and support for the minor children
5. Alimony
6. Counsel fees
Figure 2 Complaint
|
: |
Superior Court |
|
|
David Singh |
: |
J.D. Hartford-New Britain at |
|
vs. |
: |
Hartford |
|
Seoranie Sangh |
: |
August 28, 1984 |
COMPLAINT
1. The plaintiff and defendant, whose maiden mane was Seoranie Shewharain, intermarried at Hartford, Connecticut, on January 13, 1983.
2. The marriage was entered into upon the mistaken belief by both parties that they were not related.
3. The parties have recently discovered that they are uncle and niece.
4. There are no minor children issue of said marriage
5. No other minor children have been born to the defendant since the date of marriage of the parties.
6. The State of Connecticut is not contributing to the support of either party.
Wherefore, plaintiff claims:
1. An annulment of said marriage.
_________ Esq., of Hartford, Connecticut, is recognized in the sufficient sum of $250.00 to prosecute, etc.
By ___________________
A Guide to Resources in the Law Library
|
SCOPE: |
Bibliographic sources relating to defenses to actions for annulment
|
|
SEE ALSO:
|
|
|
CURRENCY: |
· 2008 Edition
|
|
COURT RULES: |
· Conn. Practice Book (2008) § 25-9. Answer, Cross Complaint, Claims for Relief by Defendant § 25-10. — Answer to Cross Complaint § 25-63. Right to Counsel in Family Civil Contempt Proceedings
|
|
FORMS: |
· 1C Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice 565 Annulment of Marriage (2003 rev.) § 24. Answer—divorce obtained from former spouse in another state § 32. Answer—Defense—Parties of lawful age in state where marriage performed § 50. Answer—Defense—Statute of limitation
|
|
CASES: |
· Fattibene v. Fattibene, 183 Conn. 433, 437, 441 A.2d 3 (1981). “In the counterclaim to the complaint, the defendant sought an annulment of the marriage based on the plaintiff's fraudulent nondisclosure at the time of the marriage of her prior marital status and of the previous birth of a child. Although there is evidence in the record to the contrary, the defendant alleges that he did not learn of the nondisclosed facts until the commencement of this action, over twenty-five years after the wedding ceremony, and never condoned the plaintiff's fraud or cohabitated with her after discovering it. The trial court decided that a valid marriage existed between the parties and dissolved it, rather than declare it null and void. The defendant claims on appeal that the trial court erred.”
|
|
ENCYCLOPEDIAS: |
· 4 AM. JUR. 2D Annulment of Marriage (1995). III. Defenses (§§34-47) A. In General § 34 Generally § 35 Equitable defenses: clean hands; estoppel B. Postnuptial conduct; ratification of marriage § 36 Generally; condonation § 37 Marriage induced by fraud or duress § 38 Marriage under age of consent § 39 Cohabitation with knowledge of bigamous marriage § 40 Refusal of intercourse; refusal to have children § 41 Impotence § 42 Mental incompetence C. Antenuptial knowledge of ground for annulment § 43 Generally; physical defect or incapacity; disease § 44 § 45 Existence of undissolved prior marriage § 46 Application of doctrine of estoppel and clean hands § 47 Prohibition of remarriage in divorce decree- · James Lockhart, Cause Of Action To Annul Marriage, 29 C.O.A. 431 (1992). Defenses §23 Generally §24 Prior knowledge of annulment grounds §25 Ratification §26 Ratification or validation of void marriage §27 Nonessential fraud §28 Res Judicata and collateral estoppel §29 Laches, equitable estoppel, and unclean hands
|
|
COMPILER: |
Lawrence Cheeseman , Supervising Law Librarian, Connecticut Judicial Department, Law Library at Middletown, One Court Street, Middletown, CT 06457. (860) 343‑6560. EMAIL
|
A Guide to Resources in the Law Library
|
SCOPE: |
Bibliographic resources relating to the procedures for obtaining an annulment in Connecticut
|
|
SEE ALSO:
|
· § 4.2 Service of process and venue
|
|
CURRENCY: |
· 2008 Edition
|
|
STATUTES: |
· Conn. Gen. Stat. (2007) Chapter 815 Court Proceedings in Family Relations Matters § 46b-1. Family relations matters defined. (3). annulment of marriage Chapter 815j Dissolution of Marriage, Legal Separation and Annulment § 46b-10. Attempt at reconciliation in action for . . . annulment. § 46b-11. Closed hearings and records. § 46b-42. Jurisdiction. “The superior court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all complaints seeking a decree of annulment . . . .” § 46b-43. Capacity of minor to prosecute or defend § 46b-45. Service and filing of complaint § 46b-45a. Allegations of pregnancy in pleadings. Disagreement as to paternity. Hearing § 46b-46. Notice to nonresident party. Jurisdiction over nonresident for alimony and support § 46b-48. Annulment upon conviction of crime against chastity; procedures § 46b-49. Private hearings § 46b-55. Attorney General as party. Paternity establishment § 46b-56. Orders re custody, care, education, visitation and support of children. Best interests of the child. Access to records of minor child by noncustodial parent. Orders re therapy, counseling and drug or alcohol screening. § 46b-62. Orders for payment of attorney's fees in certain actions.ons § 46b-66a. Order of court re conveyance of title to real property. Effect of decree § 46b-67(b). “Neither the ninety-day period specified in this section nor the six-month period referred to in section 46b-53 shall apply in actions for annulment and the court may proceed on any cause of action for annulment in the manner generally applicable in civil actions.” § 46b-69. Statutes applicable to matrimonial actions § 46b-69a. Wage executions and earnings assignments § 46b-81. Assignment of property and transfer of title § 46b-82. Alimony
|
|
FORMS:
|
· 2 Connecticut Practice Book (1997) Complaint for Annulment, Form 504.5 · 1A Douglass B. Wright and John H. Yeomans, Connecticut Legal Forms (1983). Complaint for Annulment, Form 1101.5
|
|
TEXTS & TREATISES:
|
· 7 Arnold H. Rutkin and Kathleen A. Hogan, Connecticut Practice Series. Family Law And Practice with Forms (2d ed. 1999). Chapter 14. Procedure in Annulment Actions §14.2 Jurisdiction §14.3 Commencement of Action; Service of Process §14.4 Parties §14.5 Pleadings in Annulment Actions §14.6 Presumption and Burden of Proof §14.7 Judgment and Orders in Annulment Actions
|
|
ENCYCLOPEDIAS:
|
· Maurice T. Brunner, Annotation, Rule As Regards Competency Of Husband Or Wife To Testify As To Nonaccess, 49 ALR3d 212 (1973). · Annotation, Power Of Incompetent Spouse’s Guardian, Committee, Or Next Friend To Sue For Granting Or Vacation Of Divorce Or Annulment Of Marriage, Or To Make A Compromise Or Settlement In Such Suit, 6 ALR3d 681 (1966). · Annotation, Necessity And Sufficiency Of Corroboration Of Plaintiff’s Testimony Concerning Ground For Annulment Of Marriage, 71 ALR2d 620 (1960). · Annotation, Limitation Of Actions For Annulment Of Marriage, 52 ALR2d 1163 (1957). · Annotation, Right To Attack Validity Of Marriage After Death Of Party Thereto, 47 ALR2d 1393 (1956). · Annotation, Applicability, To Annulment Actions, Of Residence Requirements Of Divorce Statutes, 32 ALR2d 734 (1953). · Annotation, Antenuptial Knowledge Relating To Alleged Grounds As Barring Right To Annulment, 15 ALR2d 706 (1951).
|
|
COMPILER: |
Lawrence Cheeseman , Supervising Law Librarian, Connecticut Judicial Department, Law Library at Middletown, One Court Street, Middletown, CT 06457. (860) 343‑6560. EMAIL
|
A Guide to Resources in the Law Library
|
SCOPE: |
Bibliographic resources relating to jurisdiction in an action for annulment of marriage in Connecticut
|
|
CURRENCY: |
· 2008 Edition
|
|
STATUTES: |
· Conn. Gen. Stat. (2007) Chapter 815. Court proceedings in family relations matters § 46b-1. “Matters within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court deemed to be family relations matters shall be matters affecting or involving . . . (3) annulment of marriage . . . . .” Chapter 815j Dissolution of Marriage, Legal Separation and Annulment § 46b-42. Jurisdiction. “The superior court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all complaints seeking a decree of annulment . . . .” § 46b-43. Capacity of minor to prosecute or defend § 46b-46. Notice to nonresident party. Jurisdiction over nonresident for alimony and support § 46b-67(b). “Neither the ninety-day period specified in this section nor the six-month period referred to in section 46b-53 shall apply in actions for annulment and the court may proceed on any cause of action for annulment in the manner generally applicable in civil actions.”
|
|
CASES: |
· Manndorff v. Dax, 13 Conn. App. 282, 284-285, 535 A.2d 1324 (1988). "Although the annulment statutes do not specifically say so, the parties agree, as do we, that there is an additional requirement with respect to subject matter jurisdiction over annulment actions. At least one party must be domiciled in Connecticut." · Mazzei v. Cantales, 142 Conn. 173, 176, 112 A.2d 205 (1955). “But the statutory provisions concerning residence and domicil and service by order of notice pertain, by their terms, only to actions for divorce. The legislature has manifested no intention that they shall apply to actions for annulment.” · Mazzei v. Cantales, 142 Conn. 173, 179 (1955), 112 A.2d 205 (1955). “Where both parties to an action for annulment of a void marriage are non-residents and the defendant is not served with process within this state or does not appear and submit to the jurisdiction of the Superior Court, the fact that the marriage was performed within this state does not empower the court to obtain jurisdiction over the defendant by constructive service and to render a judgment annulling the marriage.” · Perlstein v. Perlstein, 152 Conn. 152, 160, 204 A.2d 909 (1964). “It follows that the statute (§52-68) generally governing service by publication on a nonresident defendant properly applies to an annulment action, where, as here, the plaintiff is domiciled in Connecticut.”
|
|
WEST KEY NUMBERS:
|
· Marriage #60(3) |
|
TEXTS & TREATISES:
|
· 7 Arnold H. Rutkin and Kathleen A. Hogan, Connecticut Practice Series. Family Law And Practice with Forms (2d ed. 1999). Chapter 14. Procedure in Annulment Actions § 14.2 Jurisdiction
|
|
ENCYCLOPEDIAS:
|
· 4 AM. JUR. 2D 734 Annulment of Marriage § 50 (1995). · 55 C.J.S. Marriage § 67 (1998). · Annotation, Applicability, To Annulment Actions, Of Residence Requirements Of Divorce Statutes, 32 ALR2d 734 (1953).
|
|
COMPILER: |
Lawrence Cheeseman , Supervising Law Librarian, Connecticut Judicial Department, Law Library at Middletown, One Court Street, Middletown, CT 06457. (860) 343‑6560. EMAIL
|
A Guide to Resources in the Law Library
|
SCOPE: |
Bibliographic sources relating to the procedures for service of process in an action for annulment of marriage.
|
|
CURRENCY: |
· 2008 Edition
|
|
DEFINITIONS: |
· PROCESS: “shall be a writ of summons or attachment, describing the parties, the court to which it is returnable and the time and place of appearance, and shall be accompanied by the plaintiff's complaint.” Conn. Practice Book §8-1(a) (2008). · MANNER OF SERVICE: “Except as otherwise provided, process in any civil action shall be served by leaving a true and attested copy of it, including the declaration or complaint, with the defendant, or at his usual place of abode, in this state.” Conn. Gen. Stats. §52-57(a) (2007) · USUAL PLACE OF ABODE: “It is clear that one’s ‘usual place of abode’ is in the place where he would most likely have knowledge of service of process . . . . Its chief purpose is to ensure actual notice to the defendant that the action is pending . . . . The usual place of abode is generally considered to be the place where the person is living at the time of service . . . . It is not necessarily his domicil . . . and a person may have more than one usual place of abode . . . . In the final analysis, the determination of one’s usual place of abode is a question of fact and the court may consider various circumstances.” Plonski v. Halloran, 36 Conn. Supp. 335, 335-336, 420 A.2d 117 (1980). · VENUE: “A proceeding for annulment, dissolution of marriage or legal separation shall be commenced by the service and filing of a complaint as in all other civil actions in the Superior Court for the judicial district in which one of the parties resides. The complaint may also be made by the Attorney General in a proceeding for annulment of a void marriage. The complaint shall be served on the other party.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-45(a) (2007).
|
|
STATUTES: |
· Conn. Gen. Stat. (2007) Chapter 815j. Dissolution of marriage, Legal separation and Annulment § 46b-45. Service and filing of complaint. § 46b-46. Notice to nonresident party. Jurisdiction over nonresident for alimony and support Chapter 896. Civil actions § 52-46. Time for service § 52-48. Return day of process § 52-50. Persons to whom process shall be directed § 52-54. Service of summons § 52-57. Manner of service upon individuals . . . . (a) “Except as otherwise provided, process in any civil action shall be served by leaving a true and attested copy of it, including the declaration or complaint, with the defendant, or at his usual place of abode, in this state.”
|
|
COURT RULES: |
· Connecticut Practice Book (2008) Chapter 8. Commencement of action § 8-1. Mesne Process § 8-2. Waiver of court fees and costs Chapter 10. Pleadings § 10-12. Service of the Pleading and Other Papers; Responsibility of Counsel or Pro Se Party: Documents and Persons to Be Served § 10-13. —Method of service § 10-14. —Proof of service § 10-15 —Numerous defendants § 10-16. —Several parties represented by one attorney Chapter 25. Procedure in Family Matters § 25-28. Order of Notice
|
|
COURT FORMS: |
· JD-FM-3. Family Summons · JD-FM-168, Order of notice by publication or mail in family cases
|
|
CASES: |
· Babouder v. Abdennur, 41 Conn. Supp. 258, 259, 262, 566 A2d 457(1989). “In Connecticut, as in other states, the court will not exercise jurisdiction in a civil case which is based upon service of process on a defendant who has been decoyed, enticed or induced to come within the court’s jurisdiction by any false representation, deceitful contrivance or wrongful device for which the plaintiff is responsible . . . . This rule does not apply, however, when the defendant enters the state on his own, even if the plaintiff and his agents then engage in trickery to make service of process.” · Gluck v. Gluck, 181 Conn. 225, 435 A.2d 35 (1980). Abode service. · Smith v. Smith, 150 Conn. 15, 183 A.2d 848 (1962).
|
|
WEST KEY NUMBERS:
|
· Marriage #60(4) · Process # 1 et seq. |
|
ENCYCLOPEDIAS:
|
· 72 C.J.S. Process §2 et seq. (1987). |
|
TEXTS: |
· 7 Arnold H. Rutkin and Kathleen A. Hogan, Connecticut Practice Series. Family Law And Practice with Forms (2d ed. 1999). Chapter 14. Procedure in Annulment Actions § 14.3 Commencement of action; Service of process |
|
COMPILER: |
· Lawrence Cheeseman, Supervising Law Librarian, Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Library at Middletown, One Court Street, Middletown, CT 06424. (860) 343-6560. EMAIL
|
|
SCOPE: |
Bibliographic resources relating to proper or necessary parties to an action for annulment of marriage in Connecticut
|
|
CURRENCY: |
· 2008 Edition
|
|
STATUTES: |
· Conn. Gen. Stat. (2007) Chapter 815j Dissolution of Marriage, Legal Separation and Annulment § 46b-43. Capacity of minor to prosecute or defend § 46b-45. Service and filing of complaint. “A proceeding for annulment . . . shall be commenced by the service and filing of a complaint as in all other civil actions in the Superior Court for the judicial district in which one of the parties resides. The complaint may also be made by the Attorney General in a proceeding for annulment of a void marriage. The complaint shall be served on the other party.”
|
|
COURT RULES: |
· Connecticut Practice Book (2008) Chapter 9. Parties § 9-1. Continuance for absent or nonresident defendant § 9-3.Joinder of parties and actions; interested persons as plaintiffs § 9-4. —Joinder of plaintiffs in one action § 9-5. —Consolidation of actions § 9-6. —Interested persons as defendants § 9-18. Addition or substitution of parties; additional parties summoned in by court § 9-19. —Nonjoinder and misjoinder of parties § 9-22. —Motion to cite in new parties § 9-24. Change of name by minor children Chapter 10. Pleadings § 10-12. Service of the pleadings and other papers; responsibility of counsel or pro se party; documents and persons to be served § 10-13. —Method of service § 10-14. —Proof of service § 10-15. —Numerous defendants § 10-16. —Several parties represented by one attorney
|
|
CASES: |
· Anderson v. Anderson, 27 Conn. Sup. 342, 343, 238 A.2d 45 (1967). "This action raises the question: Is the plaintiff, a Connecticut resident, a 'guilty' party to a bigamous marriage entered into in the state of New York, entitled to a decree declaring that marriage null and void?" · Manndorf v. Dax, 13 Conn. App. 282, 287, 535 A.2d 1324 (1988). “Although interested in the defendant’s marriage to the husband, the plaintiff, as a nonparty to that marriage, had no right to maintain an action for its annulment.” · O'Brien v. O'Brien, 3 Conn. Sup. 1, 4 (1935). "There is no question, under the evidence, that the invalidity of the marriage was never judicially pronounced and none that any effort was ever made to bring its legality into question before Harriet O'Brien died. Harriet O'Brien's death ended all opportunity of ever doing so."
|
|
WEST KEY NUMBER:
|
· Marriage # 60(5) |
|
DIGESTS: |
· ALR Digest: Marriage §49
|
|
TEXTS & TREATISES:
|
· 7 Arnold H. Rutkin and Kathleen A. Hogan, Connecticut Practice Series. Family Law And Practice with Forms (2d ed. 1999). Chapter 14 . Procedure in Annulment Actions § 14.4 Parties
|
|
ENCYCLOPEDIAS:
|
· 4 Am. Jur. 2d Annulment of Marriage §§ 61-67 (1995) · 55 C.J.S. Marriage § 69 (1998).
|
|
COMPILER: |
Lawrence Cheeseman , Supervising Law Librarian, Connecticut Judicial Department, Law Library at Middletown, One Court Street, Middletown, CT 06457. (860) 343‑6560. EMAIL
|
A Guide to Resources in the Law Library
|
SCOPE: |
Bibliographic resources relating to the pleading in an annulment in Connecticut
|
|
STATUTES: |
· Conn. Gen. Stat. (2005) Chapter 815j Dissolution of Marriage, Legal Separation and Annulment § 46b-45. Service and filing of complaint
|
|
CURRENCY: |
· 2008 Edition
|
|
COURT RULES: |
· Connecticut Practice Book (2008) § 25-1. Definitions applicable to proceeding on family matters § 25-2. Complaint for annulment § 25-5. Automatic orders upon service of complaint § 25-9. _____. Answer, cross complaint, claims for relief by defendant § 25-10._____. Answer to cross complaint
|
|
FORMS:
|
· 2 Connecticut Practice Book (1997). Complaint for Annulment, Form 504.5 · 1A Douglass B. Wright and John H. Yeomans, Connecticut Legal Forms (1983). Complaint for Annulment, Form 1101.5 · 29 COA 431 (1992). Cause of action to annul marriage. § 42. Sample complaint § 42.10. Sample complaint to annul marriage where there are no children or property § 42.20. Sample complaint to annul "mock" marriage · 1C Am. Jur. Pleading & Practice Annulment Of Marriage (2003 rev.). § 4. Complaint, petition, or declaration—To annul marriage—No children or property § 12. Complaint, petition, or declaration—To annul marriage—Mock marriage § 21. Complaint, petition, or declaration—To annul marriage on ground of prior existing marriage—Absence of children or property § 22. Complaint, petition, or declaration—To annul marriage on ground of prior existing marriage—Absence of children—Property accumulated § 23. Complaint, petition, or declaration—To annul marriage on ground of prior existing marriage—Divorce decree not final § 36. Complaint, petition, or declaration—To annul incestuous marriage—General form § 37. Complaint, petition, or declaration—To annul incestuous marriage—Another form § 41. Complaint, petition, or declaration—To annul marriage on ground of fraud—Undisclosed intent not to cohabit § 69. Complaint, petition, or declaration—To annul marriage on ground of physical incapacity—General form
|
|
RECORDS & BRIEFS:
|
· Connecticut Supreme Court Records & Briefs, Singh v. Singh, 213 Conn. 637 (November 1989). Complaint. |
|
CASES: |
· Durham v. Miceli, 15 Conn. App. 96, 97, 543 A.2d 286 (1988). “In order to be entitled to an annulment of marriage, the plaintiff must allege and prove that ‘the marriage is void or voidable under the laws of this state or, the state in which the marriage was performed.’ General Statutes § 46b-40(b). The plaintiff’s complaint is devoid of such allegations.”
|
|
TEXTS & TREATISES: |
· 7 Arnold H. Rutkin and Kathleen A. Hogan, Connecticut Practice Series. Family Law And Practice with Forms (2d ed. 1999). Chapter 14 . Procedure in Annulment Actions § 14.5. Pleadings in annulment actions
|
|
COMPILER: |
Lawrence Cheeseman , Supervising Law Librarian, Connecticut Judicial Department, Law Library at Middletown, One Court Street, Middletown, CT 06457. (860) 343‑6560. EMAIL
|
This action, by writ and complaint, claiming an annulment of the marriage of the parties and other relief, came to this court on (return date) and thence to later dates when the defendant appeared and the action
was claimed for hearing (or the defendant made default of appearance. Add finding of due service and military status of defendant. See Form 507.1)
The matter came thence to the present time when the plaintiff appeared to prosecute the claim for an annulment of the marriage.
The court, having heard the evidence, finds the following:
1. The woman, by the name of was married to the man on at
2. (Set forth reason for annulment)
3. Only the following minor child or children have been born to the woman since the date of the marriage, all of whom are the issues of the parties hereto:
Whereupon it is adjudged that the marriage of the parties to this action be and it is hereby declared to be null and void and that each of the parties to this action are hereby declared to be single and unmarried, and that the name of the plaintiff (or defendant) is hereby declared to be
by which name she shall hereafter be known and called.
(Add any orders re custody, alimony, support, etc.)
By the Court
________________________
Judge - Assistant Clerk
(P.B. 1963, Form 492.)
A Guide to Resources in the Law Library
|
SCOPE: |
· Bibliographic resources relating to the matters children and annulment including child support, custody and visitation
|
|
CURRENCY: |
· 2008 Edition
|
|
STATUTES: |
· Conn. Gen. Stat. (2007) Chapter 815j. Dissolution of marriage, Legal separation and Annulment § 46b-60. Orders re Children and Alimony in Annulment Cases. “The issue of any void or voidable marriage shall be deemed legitimate.”
|
|
CASES: |
· Hames v. Hames, 163 Conn. 588, 593, 316 A.2d 379 (1972). “Section 46-28 of the General Statutes provides that the issue of any void or voidable marriage shall be deemed legitimate and permits the Superior Court to order alimony, custody and child support as it might in a divorce proceeding.” · Sarantos v. Sarantos, 18 Conn. Supp. 472, 474 (1953). “Our statute (§ 7341) empowers our court to annul a marriage illegal under the laws of the foreign state in which it was celebrated. It does not purport to carry over to Connecticut the foreign law of the state in which the marriage was celebrated as to the legitimacy of the offspring of such marriage. The question of legitimacy under the facts here is governed by the law of Connecticut, which at the time of the child's birth was, and up to the present time continuously has been, the domicil of both parents and of the child.”
|
|
TEXTS & TREATISES:
|
· 7 Arnold H. Rutkin and Kathleen A. Hogan, Connecticut Practice Series. Family Law And Practice with Forms (2d ed. 1999). Chapter 14. Procedure in Annulment Actions § 14.8 Legitimacy of children
|
|
ENCYCLOPEDIAS:
|
· 4 Am. Jur. 2d Annulment of Marriage §85 (1995). · 55 C.J.S. Marriage §64 (1998). · George L. Blum, Annotation, Grandparents' Visitation Rights Where Child's Parents Are Living, 71 ALR5th 99 (1999). § 9. 'Where child's parents' marriage is anulled." · Annotation, Court’s Power As To Custody And Visitation Of Children In Marriage Annulment Proceedings, 63 ALR2d 1008 (1959). · Annotation, Court’s Power As To Support And Maintenance Of Children In Marriage Annulment Proceedings, 63 ALR2d 1029 (1959).
|
|
COMPILER: |
Lawrence Cheeseman , Supervising Law Librarian, Connecticut Judicial Department, Law Library at Middletown, One Court Street, Middletown, CT 06457. (860) 343‑6560. EMAIL
|
A Guide to Resources in the Law Library
|
SCOPE: |
Bibliographic resources relating to out-of-state and foreign annulments in Connecticut
|
|
CURRENCY: |
· 2008 Edition
|
|
DEFINITION: |
· “A state has the authority to declare what marriages of its citizens shall be recognized as valid, regardless of the fact that the marriages may have been entered into in foreign jurisdictions where they were valid. Catalano v. Catalano, 148 Conn. 288, 291, 170 A.2d 726 (1961). · “The Superior Court has authority to annul a marriage performed in another state if the marriage would have been invalid in that state or violates a strong public policy of this state.” Fattibene v. Fattibene, 183 Conn. 433, 437, 441 A.2d 3 (1981).
|
|
STATUTES: |
· Conn. Gen. Stat. (2007) Chapter 815j. Dissolution of marriage, Legal separation and Annulment § 46b-40. Grounds for Annulment. (a) “An annulment shall be granted if the marriage is void or voidable under the laws of this state or of the state in which the marriage was performed.”
|
|
CASES: |
· Fattibene v. Fattibene, 183 Conn. 433, 437, 441 A.2d 3 (1981). “The Supreme Court has authority to annul a marriage performed in another state if the marriage would have been invalid in that state or violates a strong public policy of this state.” · Delaney v. Delaney, 35 Conn. Supp. 230, 232, 405 A.2d 91 (1979). “. . . a valid common-law marriage contracted in a state that recognizes such marriages would be upheld in this state.” · Parker v. Parker, 29 Conn. Supp. 41, 43, 270 A.2d 94 (1970). “The validity of the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant is governed by the lex loci contractus . . . where the ceremony was performed.” · Catalano v. Catalano, 148 Conn. 288, 291, 170 A.2d 726 (1961).. “It is generally accepted rule that a marriage valid where the ceremony is performed is valid everywhere . . . . There are, however, certain exceptions to that rule, including one which regards as invalid incestuous marriages between persons so closely related that their marriage is contrary to the strong public policy of the domicil though valid where celebrated.” · Browner v. Browner, 15 Conn. Supp. 77 (1947). “This marriage was contracted in the state of New York and consequently may be annulled by this court if, for any cause, it is void or voidable under New York law.”
|
|
TEXTS & TREATISES:
|
· 7 Arnold H. Rutkin and Kathleen A. Hogan, Connecticut Practice Series. Family Law And Practice with Forms (2d ed. 1999). Chapter 14 . Procedure in Annulment Actions § 14.10 Annulment of foreign marriages
|
|
COMPILER: |
Lawrence Cheeseman , Supervising Law Librarian, Connecticut Judicial Department, Law Library at Middletown, One Court Street, Middletown, CT 06457. (860) 343‑6560. EMAIL
|
Table 4 Unreported Connecticut Decisions on Annulment of Marriage
|
Recent Unreported Connecticut Decisions
|
|
|
Rice v. Monteleone, No. FA02-0563144S (Conn. Super. Ct., New London, Feb. 25, 2004), 2004 WL 503689
|
“In essence, the plaintiff's claims, which form the bases of her request for an annulment, are that the defendant lied to her in his assertions of love and affection and married her for her money. Even if one assumes for the sake of argument that those claims were proven, they are not sufficient for the entry of an order of annulment.” |
|
DaSilva v. DaSilva, No. 02 0470290 (Conn. Super. Ct., New Haven, Apr. 21, 2003), 2003 WL 21037549.
|
“It is the plaintiff's burden of proof to prove the grounds for annulment. Fattibene v. Fattibene, 183 Conn. 433 (1981). ‘A petition for the annulment of a marriage requires of the court hearing . . . great caution and demands clear proof." Davis v. Davis, 119 Conn. 194 (1934).’ It must find that the conditions leading up to and surrounding the marriage have been established by clear and convincing evidence to be such as to render the marriage void or voidable.’ Trotta v. Trotta, 5 Conn. Sup. 218 (1937). ‘An annulment is not favored.’ Durham v. Miceli, 15 Conn. App. 96 (1988). Marriages are strongly favored by the law. Existing marriages are presumed to be valid and that presumption has been described by the courts as very strong. Carabetta v. Carabetta, 183 Conn. 344 (1980); and Manndorff v. Dax, 13 Conn. App. 282 (1988). Carabetta found the public policy favoring marriages so strong that it upheld an unlicensed ceremony.”
|
|
Hassan v. Hassan, No. FA01-0632261 (Conn. Super. Ct., Hartford, Sep. 30, 2001), 2001 WL 1329840.
|
"In the present case, the plaintiff claims she was pregnant with the defendant's child, hence the marriage had been 'consummated' prior to the ceremony. As to the issue of consummation, the fact situation is quite similar to Schibi [136 Conn. 196, 199, 69 A.2d 831 (1949)]. The lack of consummation surely is not sufficient grounds for the marriage to be declared void and it seems unlikely, given Schibi, that it is even grounds to find the marriage voidable and consequently subject to annulment.”
|
|
Duren v. Burwood, No. FA 01 0084521 (Conn. Super. Ct., Litchfield, Aug. 29, 2001) 2001 WL 1159629.
|
"In the first count the plaintiff seeks an annulment on the grounds that the marriage is voidable because the plaintiff was fraudulently induced to enter the marriage. The court heard evidence from the plaintiff that he expected a monogamous relationship with the defendant when he married her. The defendant engaged in an extramarital relationship almost immediately after the marriage with a guest at the wedding. The defendant testified that she had expected that the marriage would be 'open'. There was no discussion regarding these expectations before the marriage. As the court noted in Ross v. Ross, 22 Conn.L.Rptr 637 (1998), It is the plaintiff's burden of proof to prove the grounds for annulment. Fattibene v. Fattibene, supra, 183 Conn. 438. 'A petition for the annulment of a marriage on this ground requires of the court hearing it great caution and demands clear proof ' Davis v. Davis, 119 Conn. 194, 203 (1934). 'It must find that the conditions leading up to and surrounding the marriage have been established by clear and convincing evidence to be such as to render the marriage void or voidable.' Trotta v. Trotta, 5 Conn. Sup. 218, 223 (1937). 'An annulment is not favored.' Durham v. Miceli, 15 Conn. App. 96, 97 (1988). The court finds that the plaintiff has failed to prove the allegations to support a judgment of annulment."
|
|
Ross v. Ross, No. FA97 0162587 S (Conn. Super. Ct., Stamford/Norwalk, Aug. 10, 1998), 1998 WL 516159. |
"Although in 1973 the Connecticut legislature made it virtually impossible for a court to reject a complaint for a dissolution of marriage, no such statute was passed concerning annulments. In most reported contested annulment cases tried to Connecticut courts since 1973, the request for annulment has been denied. Most complaints allege a second count, a fall-back position, seeking a dissolution of marriage. In most of those cases the decree dissolving the marriage was entered."
|
|
Gutkowski v. Gutkowski, No. FA 967125715 (Conn. Super. Ct., Hartford, Nov. 4, 1996), 1996 WL 651641.
|
"This court acknowledges the principle that a legal representative of a decedent's estate may pursue an annulment action that had been commenced prior to death. While the lessons of Perlstein v. Perlstein remain vital, however, they should only apply to an action in which a fiduciary of a married party's estate seeks to obtain an annulment of a marriage to which its decedent was a party. As such, Perlstein v. Perlstein, supra, fails to provide adequate guidance for this court, which must assess the status of non-fiduciaries who seek to secure the annulment of a marriage which terminated by reason of death prior to the assertion of their claims."
|