SCOPE:

Bibliographic resources relating to person who may marry in Connecticut

DEFINITIONS:

·         “Connecticut has its statutory scheme in place to implement its policy of delineating the relationships between persons under our jurisdiction who may properly enter into marriage. It has been for many years and still remains the declared public policy of the state.” Singh v. Singh, 213 Conn. 637, 656, 569 A.2d 1112  (1990).

·         Affinity vs. Consanguinity: “Affinity is ‘the connection existing in consequence of marriage between each of the married persons and the kindred of the other.’ In re Bordeaux’s Estate, 37 Wn.2d 561, 565, 225 P.2d 433 (1950); annot., 26 A.L.R.2d 271.” Lavieri v. Commissioner of Revenue Services, 184 Conn. 380, 383, 439 A.2d 1012 (1981).  Affinity is distinguished from consanguinity, which is relationship by blood.” Remington v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 35 Conn. App. 581, 587, 646 A.2d 266 (1994).

STATUTES:

·         Conn. Gen. Stat. (2005)

§ 46b-21. Kindred who may not marry. “No man may marry his mother, grandmother, daughter, granddaughter, sister, aunt, niece, stepmother or stepdaughter, and no woman may marry her father, grandfather, son, grandson, brother, uncle, nephew, stepfather or stepson. Any marriage within these degrees is void.”

§ 46b-29. Marriage of persons under conservatorship or guardianship

§ 46b-30. Marriage of minors “(a) No license may be issued to any applicant under sixteen years of age, unless the judge of probate for the district in which the minor resides endorses his written consent on the license. (b) No license may be issued to any applicant under eighteen years of age, unless the written consent of a parent or guardian of the person of such minor, signed and acknowledged before a person authorized to take acknowledgments of conveyances under the provisions of section 47-5a, or authorized to take acknowledgments in any other state or country, is filed with the registrar.  If no parent or guardian of the person of such minor is a resident of the United States, the written consent of the judge of probate for the district in which the minor resides, endorsed on the license, shall be sufficient.” [Emphasis added]

§ 53a-72a. Sexual assault in the third degree: Class D Felony.

§ 53a-190. Bigamy: Class D felony.

·         2003 Conn. Acts 188 § 6  (Reg. Sess.). An act concerning premarital blood test requirements and marriage certificates. “(Effective October 1, 2003) Sections 19a-27, 46b-26 and 46b-27 of the general statutes are repealed.

LEGISLATIVE:

·         Susan Price-Livingston, History of Civil Marriage in Connecticut: Selected Changes, Connecticut General Assembly, Office of Legislative Research, OLR Backgrounder 2002-R-0850 (October 15, 2002).

CASES

·         Greten v. Estate Of Mack, No. CV 03 0285543-S (May 11, 2004), 2004 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1248, 2004 WL 1194199 (Conn. Super. 2004).  “The plaintiff relies on Carabetta v. Carabetta, supra, 182 Conn.[344, ] 349, which held that a marriage that is defective for want of a required statutory formality, such as a marriage license or solemnization of the ceremony, does not necessarily void the marriage. The issue before the court in Carabetta was ‘whether, under Connecticut law, despite solemnization according to an appropriate religious ceremony, a marriage is void where there has been noncompliance with the statutory requirement of a marriage license.’ Carabetta v. Carabetta, supra, 182 Conn. 345. The court recognized that ‘[i]n 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 since . . . [1905], that such a marriage, though imperfect, is dissoluble rather than void.’ (Citation omitted.) Id., 349. The court then concluded that ‘the legislature’s failure expressly to characterize as void a marriage properly celebrated without a license means that such a marriage is not invalid.’ Id. Similarly, in Hames v. Hames, 163 Conn. 588, 316 A.2d 379 (1972), the court reaffirmed that ‘[t]he policy of the law is strongly opposed to regarding an attempted marriage . . . entered into in good faith, believed by one or both of the parties to be legal, and followed by cohabitation, to be void.’”

·         Rosengarten v. Downes, 71 Conn. App. 372, 384, 802 A.2d 170 (2002). “In determining that the legislative intent in the adoption of subdivision (17) of § 46b-1 was not to make Connecticut courts a forum for same sex, foreign civil unions, we, therefore, conclude that the text itself, the rules of court, the legislative history, the strong legislative policy against permitting same sex marriages and the relationship between other statutes, legislative enactment of state policy and the common law are all in accord with that view.”

·         State v. George B., 258 Conn. 779, 796, 785 A.2d 573 (2001). “Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s ruling that an adopted granddaughter falls within the degree of kinship set forth in §§ 53a-72a (a) (2) and 46b-21.”

·         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.”

·         State v. Moore, 158 Conn. 461, 466, 262 A.2d 166 (1969). “The element of consanguinity appears in all relationships enumerated in 46-1 [now 46b-21] except the relationship of stepmother or stepdaughter and stepfather or stepson. The question at once arises as to why, in its enumeration of relationships which do not include the element of consanguinity, the General Assembly saw fit to include only those of a stepparent or a stepchild. In the application of the criminal law, it would be an unwarranted extension and presumption to assume that by specifying those relationships the legislature has intended to include others which lack the element of consanguinity. Had the legislative intent been to include what, in this case, would commonly be called a relationship of niece-in-law and uncle-in-law, it would have been a simple matter to say so . . . . In the absence of such a declaration, we believe that the construction placed upon the statute by the trial court amounted to an unwarranted extension of its expressed meaning and intent.”

·         Catalano v. Catalano, 148 Conn. 288, 291, 170 A.2d 726 (1961). “It is the 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.”

·         Manning v. Manning, 16 Conn. Sup. 461, 462 (1950). “It is concluded that lack of parental consent does not render a marriage performed in this state either void or voidable.”

WEST KEY NUMBERS:

·         West Key Numbers:  Marriage

# 4  Persons who may marry

# 4.1. _______ In general

# 5    _______ age

# 6    _______ physical capacity

# 7    _______ mental capacity

# 8    _______ race or color

# 10  _______ Consanguinity or affinity

DIGEST TOPICS:

·         ALR Digest: Marriage §§29-40.5. Capacity of parties; who may marry.

§29.  Generally

§30.  Consanguinity or affinity

§31.  Physical incapacity

§32.  Epileptics

§33.  Infants

§34.  Intoxicated person

§35.  Insane person

§36.  Person already married

§37.  ¾Under belief that divorce has been obtained or that former spouse was dead

§38.  Divorced person

§39. ¾Spouse guilty of adultery

§40. ¾Within prohibited time after divorce

§40.5.  Time of attack on validity

·         Connecticut Family Law Citations (2005): Marriage

ENCYCLOPEDIAS:

·         52 Am. Jur. 2d Marriage (2000).

§§ 16-18. Age

§§ 19-23. Mental capacity

§§ 24-25. Physical capacity

·         55 C.J.S. Marriage (1998).

§5. What law governs

§7. Same-sex marriage

§13. Capacity of parties in general

§14. Age

§15. Mental capacity

§16. Physical capacity

§17. Consanguinity or affinity

• John D. Fletcher, Validity Of Marriage, 36 POF2d 441 (1983).

§§ 15-27.  Proof of valid ceremonial marriage [ see Table 2]

·         Robin Cheryl Miller, Annotation, Marriage Between Persons Of The Same Sex, 81 ALR5th 1 (2000).

TEXTS & TREATISES

·         7 Arnold H. Rutkin and Kathleen A. Hogan, Connecticut Practice Series, Family Law and Practice with Forms (1999). 

Chapter 3. Marriage—Generally

§ 3.4  Who may marry, in general

§ 3.5   Persons under a disability

§ 3.6   Minors

§ 3.7   Consent of parent or guardian

§ 3.8   Role of Probate Court

§ 3.9   Persons afflicted with venereal disease

§ 3.10  Persons barred by consanguinity or affinity

§ 3.11  Previously married persons

LAW REVIEWS:

·         Edward S. David, The Law And Transsexualism: A Faltering Response To A Conceptual Dilemma, 7 Connecticut Law Review 288, 322-324 (1974-75).

·         Legality Of Homosexual Marriage, 82 Yale Law Journal 573 (1972-73).

COMPILER:

Lawrence Cheeseman, Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Library at Middletown, One Court Street, Middletown, CT 06457. (860) 343‑6560.

SCOPE:

Bibliographic resources relating to issuing and use of a marriage licenses in Connecticut

DEFINITION:

·         “Such license, when certified by the registrar, is sufficient authority for any person authorized to perform a marriage ceremony in this state to join such persons in marriage, provided the ceremony is performed within the town where the license was issued and within a period of not more than sixty-five days after the date of application.” Conn. Gen. Stat. §46b-24(b) (2005).

SEE ALSO:

·         Table 1 Blood Tests

STATUTES:

·         Conn. Gen. Stat. (2005)

§ 7-73(b). Marriage license surcharge

§ 46b-24. License required. Period of validity. Penalty.

 (a) No persons may be joined in marriage in this state until both have complied with the provisions of sections 46b-24, 46b-25 and 46b-29 to 46b-33, inclusive, and have been issued a license by the registrar for the town in which (1) the marriage is to be celebrated, or (2) either person to be joined in marriage resides, which license shall bear the certification of the registrar that the persons named therein have complied with the provisions of said sections.

§ 46b-24a. Validation of marriage occurring in town other than town where license issued

§ 46b-25. Application for license

LEGISLATIVE:

·         2003 Conn. Acts 188 § 6  (Reg. Sess.). An act concerning premarital blood test requirements and marriage certificates. “(Effective October 1, 2003) Sections 19a-27, 46b-26 and 46b-27 of the general statutes are repealed.

·         2003 Conn. Acts 238 § 2 (Reg. Sess.). An act concerning the validation of certain marriages.

·         2004 Conn. Acts 255 §§ 12, 26 (Reg. Sess.)]. Act concerning funeral directors and vital records.

CASES

·         Reddy v. Reddy, No. FA 03 0285473 (Conn. Super. Ct., J.D. New Haven at Meriden, May 17, 2005).  “Although Connecticut does not recognize common-law marriages, some courts have recognized marriages entered into in Connecticut that have not complied with the necessary statutory requirements where the parties believed they were married and acted as such. Carabetta v. Carabetta, 182 Conn. 344, 350, 438 A.2d 109 (1980). In Carabetta the court addressed the issue of whether, under Connecticut law, despite solemnization according to an appropriate religious ceremony, a marriage is void where there has been noncompliance with the statutory requirement of a marriage license. The court noted that public policy is strongly opposed to regarding an attempted marriage, entered into in good faith, believed by one or both parties to be legal, and followed by cohabitation, to be void. Id., 346-47 (citing Hames v. Hames, 163 Conn. 588, 599, 316 A.2d 379 (1972)). The courtfurther explained that ‘[i]n the absence of express language inthe governing statute declaring a marriage void for failure toobserve statutory requirement . . . such a marriage, thoughimperfect, is dissoluble rather than void.’ Id., 349. The courtconcluded that ‘the legislature’s failure expressly tocharacterize as void a marriage properly celebrated without alicense means that such a marriage is not invalid.’ See also Hames v. Hames, supra, 163 Conn. 599 (interpreting statutes notto make void a marriage consummated after the issuance of alicense but deficient for want of due solemnization.)”

·         Kosek v. Osman, No. FA 02-04665181 (Conn. Super. Ct., J.D. New Haven, Feb. 25, 2005). “Under these circumstances, the court finds that the parties intended to marry and were in fact legally and validly married. Their marriage was properly and ceremonially solemnized in accord with the practices of their religion. Although they did not obtain a marriage license until six months later, that certificate stated the incorrect date, and the plaintiff did not file the license until five years later, lack of formal compliance with statutory requirements pertaining to marriage licenses does not void their marriage.”

·         Hassan v. Hassan, No. FA01-0632261 (Conn. Super. Ct., Family Support Magistrate Division, Hartford J.D., Sep. 30, 2001) 2001 WL 1329840. “A marriage license may not be issued to any person under sixteen years of age without the endorsement of a probate judge. “(a) No license may be issued to any applicant under sixteen years of age, unless the judge of probate for the district in which the minor resides endorses his written consent on the license.” General Statutes § 46b-30. The testimony of both parties suggests that the plaintiff’s parents approved of the marriage. The defendant suggests that she was over sixteen at the time. If so, that would be sufficient. However, the plaintiff claims she was fifteen. Thus, endorsement of a probate judge would be required and there has been no evidence that such endorsement was sought or granted.”

·         State v. Nosik, 245 Conn. 196, 202, 715 A.2d 673 (1998). “Thus, in Carabetta, we decided not to invalidate legally imperfect marriages if the parties had: (1) participated in a religious rite with the good faith intention of entering into a valid legal marriage; and (2) shared and manifested a good faith belief that they were, in fact, legally married. We conclude in part II of this opinion that neither of these predicates has been established in this case.”

·         Garrison v. Garrison, 190 Conn. 173, 175, 460 A.2d 945 (1983). “ He [the defendant] does not argue that the mere failure to file the marriage license makes the marriage void.”

·         Carabetta v. Carabetta, 182 Conn. 344, 349, 438 A.2d 109 (1980). “ In sum, we conclude that the legislature’s failure expressly to characterize as void a marriage properly celebrated without a license means that such a marriage is not invalid.”

·         Yonkers v. Yonkers, 6 Conn. Law Tribune No. 48, p. 14 (December 1, 1980). “The fact that the legislature omitted to declare marriages entered into by persons who had not obtained a license void is significant, because such a declaration is found in the case of marriages within the prohibited degree of kinship. This leads to a conclusion that the marriage entered into between the parties is dissoluble rather than void.”

·         State Ex Rel. Felson v. Allen, 129 Conn. 427, 431, 29 A.2d 306 (1942). “A failure to comply with many of the requirements as to marriage provided in our statutes, where there is no express provision that such a failure will invalidate it, will not have that effect . . . .”

·         Kowalczyk V. Kleszczynski, 152 Conn. 575, 577, 210 A.2d 444 (1965). “Marriage certificates are treated in this state as original documents, and need not therefore be authenticated as copies . . . .”

WEST KEY NUMBER:

·         West Key Number:  Marriage # 25 Licenses and licensing officers

(1).  Necessity for and effect of failure to procure license

(2).  Requisites and validity of license

(3).  Authority to issue license

(4).  Duties of officers in general

(5).  Liability of officers and bondsmen in general

(6).  Actions against officers and bondsmen in general

DIGEST TOPICS:

·         ALR Digest: Marriage

§ 5. Liability of licensing officers

§ 12.5. License

§ 13.  ¾Necessity of

§ 14.  ¾Fraud in procuring

·         Connecticut Family Law Citations (2000): Marriage

TEXTS & TREATISES

·         7 Arnold H. Rutkin and Kathleen A. Hogan, Connecticut Practice Series, Family Law and Practice with Forms (1999).

Chapter 4. Marriage licenses and ceremonies.

§ 4.1. Necessity

§ 4.2. Venereal disease examination

§ 4.3. Rubella Immunity test

§ 4.4. Application

§ 4.5. Copy of statute to applicants

§ 4.6. Availability of completed applications

§ 4.7. Waiting period; waiver

§ 4.8. Issuance

§ 4.9. Duration 

ENCYCLOPEDIAS:

·         52 Am. Jur. 2d  Marriage (2000).

§ 30.  License

§ 31.  ____. Effect of noncompliance with licensing statute

·         55 C.J.S. Marriage (1998).

§ 27.  Licenses

§ 28.  ___. Issuance of license

§ 29.  ___. Liability for wrongful issuance of license

• John D. Fletcher, Validity Of Marriage, 36 POF2d 441 (1983).

§§ 15-27.  Proof of valid ceremonial marriage [ see Table 2]

• Annotation, Validity Of Solemnized Marriage As Affected By Absence Of License Required By Statute, 61 ALR2d 847 (1958).

COMPILER:

Lawrence Cheeseman, Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Library at Middletown, One Court Street, Middletown, CT 06457. (860) 343‑6560.

Table 2: Premarital Blood Tests

REPEALED: Effective October 1, 2003

2003 Conn. Acts 188 § 6  (Reg. Sess.).

An act concerning premarital blood test requirements and marriage certificates

(Effective October 1, 2003)

Sections 19a-27, 46b-26 and 46b-27 of the general statutes are REPEALED.

Statutes

·         Test for venereal disease and rubella prerequisite. Conn. Gen. Stat. (2001) § 46b-26.

·         Waiver of tests by judge of probate. Conn. Gen. Stat. (2001) § 46b-27(a).

Legislative

“Blood test for marriage license,” by John Kasprak. Connecticut General Assembly. Office of Legislative Research Report 98-R-1526 (December 18, 1998). http://www.cga.state.ct.us/ps98/rpt/olr/98-r-1526.doc

Regulations

“ Premarital test for rubella,” Conn. Agencies Regs. §19a-36-A56 (2002), eff. October 25, 1989.  [Conn. Gen. Stat. (2001) § 19a-27 was REPEALED effective October 1, 2003]

Case

“It is apparent that an essential provision of this statute was not complied with, that is to say when the statement of the physician was filed with the registrar it was not accompanied by a record of the standard laboratory blood test made. The only thing that accompanied the statement was a certificate by the Director of the Bureau of Laboratories of the State Department of Health that a standard laboratory blood test had in fact been made and reported to the physician who made the statement. This certificate is not at all the thing that the statute expressly requires. It is a record of the standard laboratory blood test made which must be filed with the statement. A certificate that a test has been made is one thing. The record required by the statute is quite another thing.” Doe v. Doe, 11 Conn. Sup. 157 (1942)

Text

7 Arnold H. Rutkin and Kathleen A. Hogan, Connecticut Practice Series, Family Law and Practice with Forms (1999). 

§ 4.2  Venereal disease examination

§ 4.3  Rubella immunity test

SCOPE:

Bibliographic resources relating to who may perform a marriage in Connecticut including liability of person officiating and the validity of marriages performed by unauthorized persons.

DEFINITIONS:

·          “All marriages attempted to be celebrated by any other person are void.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-22(a) (2005).

STATUTES:

·          Conn. Gen. Stat. (2005)

§ 46b-22. Who may join persons in marriage

§ 46b-22a. Validity of marriages performed by unauthorized justice of the peace

§ 46b-23. Joining persons in marriage knowingly without authority

LEGISLATIVE:

·         2003 Conn. Acts 238 § 1 (Reg. Sess.)]. An act concerning the validation of certain marriages.

·         Susan Price-Livingston, History of Civil Marriage in Connecticut: Selected Changes, Connecticut General Assembly, Office of Legislative Research, OLR Backgrounder 2002-R-0850 (October 15, 2002).

CASES

·          Ross v. Ross, No. FA97 0162587 S (Ct. Super. Ct., J.D. Stamford-Norwalk, Aug. 10, 1998). “There are two types of regulations concerning the validity of a marriage: 1) Substantive requirements determining those eligible to be married and 2) The ‘formalities prescribed by the state for the effectuation of a legally valid marriage.’ Carabetta v. Carabetta, 182 Conn. 344, 347 (1980). The formality requirements are of two sorts: 1) a marriage license and 2) solemnization. This case involves the issue of lack of solemnization.”

·          Carabetta v. Carabetta, 182 Conn. 344, 348, 438 A.2d 109 (1980). “Although solemnization is not at issue in the case before us, this language is illuminating since it demonstrates that the legislature has on occasion exercised its power to declare expressly that failure to observe some kinds of formalities, e.g., the celebration of a marriage by a person not authorized by this section to do so, renders a marriage void.”

·          State Ex Rel. Felson v. Allen, 129 Conn. 427, 432 (1942). “The situation [marriage performed by a person not authorized by statute] falls within the express terms of the statute, which declares such a marriage to be void.”

·          Town of Goshen v. Town of Stonington, 4 Conn. 209 (1822). A clergyman, in the celebration of marriage, is a public civil officer.

·          Kibbe v. Antram, 4 Conn. 134, 139 (1821).  “ordained minister within the meaning of the statute.”

·          Roberts v. State Treasurer, 2 Root 381 (1796).

ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINIONS:

·          “Minister emeritus.” 21 Op. Atty. Gen. 297, 298 (May 29, 1939). “We believe, further, that a minister emeritus has the same status as a minister who has retired, if he has not taken up another vocation or profession, and may still be considered as being in the work of the ministry.”

WEST KEY NUMBER:

·          Marriage

# 27. Solemnization or celebration. Authority to perform ceremony.

# 30. Liability of person officiating

# 31. Certificate

DIGEST TOPICS:

·          ALR Digest: Marriage § 6. Liability of person officiating,

·          Connecticut Family Law Citations (2002): Marriage

TEXTS & TREATISES

·          7 Arnold H. Rutkin and Kathleen A. Hogan, Connecticut Practice Series, Family Law and Practice with Forms (1999). 

Chapter 4. Solemnization

§4.10.  Who may solemnize marriages?

§4.12.  Duties of persons officiating at marriage

§4.13.  Effect of lack of authority to solemnized marriage

§4.14.  Penalty for unauthorized performance

§4.15.  Effect of lack of solemnization

ENCYCLOPEDIAS:

·          52 Am. Jur. 2d  Marriage (2000).

§ 33. Performance of marriage ceremony by qualified person

§ 34. —Effect of violation of solemnizing statute

·          55 C.J.S. Marriage (1998).

§ 31. Solemnization. Persons who may solemnize.

§ 32.  _____. Liabilities of persons solemnizing

·          John D. Fletcher, Validity Of Marriage, 36 POF2d 441 (1983).

§§ 15-27.  Proof of valid ceremonial marriage [ see Table 2]

·          Annotation, Validity Of Marriage As Affected By Lack Of Legal Authority Of Person Solemnizing It, 13 ALR4th 1323 (1982).

COMPILER:

Lawrence Cheeseman, Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Library at Middletown, One Court Street, Middletown, CT 06457. (860) 343‑6560.

Table 2: Proof of Valid Ceremonial Marriage

36 POF2d 441 (1983)

John D. Fletcher

A.     Testimony of Investigator

§15

Authentication of marriage certificate

B.     Testimony of Eyewitness to Marriage

§16

Parties’ cohabitation as married couple

§17

Identification of parties as participants in ceremony

§18

Performance of ceremony

§19

Capacity of parties at time of ceremony

C. Testimony of Custodian of Church Records

§20

Church record of marriage

C.     Testimony as to Statements of Family Members

§21

Qualifications of witness

§22

Qualifications of declarant

§23

Statements by declarant about marriage

§24

Statements by party to marriage

D.     Testimony as to Family Reputation and Family Documents

§25

Relationship of witness to family

§26

Family reputation as to marriage

§27

Family record of marriage

SCOPE:

Bibliographic resources relating to marriage ceremonies in Connecticut

DEFINITIONS:

·         “Our statutory scheme specifies no precise form for the celebration of marriage; nor does it explicitly require that the parties declare that they take one another as husband and wife . . . . No requirement is made concerning witnesses, but, like consent, the physical presence of the parties before an official is an implicit requirement to the performance of a marriage in this state.” Hames v. Hames, 163 Conn. 588, 596, 316 A.2d 379 (1972).

·         “The law has not pointed out any mode in which marriages shall be celebrated, but has left it to the common custom and practice of the country. Any form of words which explicitly constitute a contract and engagement from the parties to each other, and published in the presence of, and by the officer appointed by the Statute, will be a valid marriage.” 1 Swift, Digest, p. 20.

·          “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.” Bernstein v. Bernstein, 25 Conn. Sup. 239, 201 A.2d 660 (1964)

STATUTES:

·         Conn. Gen. Stat. (2005)

§ 46b-24a. Validation of marriage occurring in town other than town where license issued

CASES

·         Ross v. Ross, No. FA97 0162587 S (Ct. Super. Ct., J.D. Stamford-Norwalk, Aug. 10, 1998), 22 Conn. L. Rptr. 637,639 (November 2, 1998), 1998 WL 516159 (Conn. Super. 1998). “The Supreme Court reversed and held that the plaintiffs absence in 1960 from the ceremony in which the priest signed the marriage certificate prevented solemnization for the purpose of General Statutes § 46-3 (currently General Statutes § 46b-22). The noncompliance with that statute precluded the parties from acquiring valid marital status and rendered the 1960 marriage voidable.”

·         State v. Nosik, 245 Conn. 196, 207, 715 A.2d 673 (1998). “In light of these facts, the trial court reasonably could have concluded that the defendant did not participate in the ceremony in New Jersey with the good faith belief that she was entering into a valid legal marriage. We conclude, therefore, that the trial court’s finding that the service at St. George’s was not a valid wedding ceremony was not clearly erroneous.”

·         Garrison v. Garrison, 190 Conn. 173, 175, 460 A.2d 945 (1983). “ He [the defendant] does not argue that the mere failure to file the marriage license makes the marriage void.”

·         Hames v. Hames, 163 Conn. 588, 596, 316 A.2d 379 (1972). “. . . the purported marriage, deficient for want of due solemnization, was voidable rather than void, insofar as the latter term may imply an absolute nullity.”

·         Perlstein v. Perlstein, 152 Conn. 152, 157, 204 A.2d 909 (1964). “A marriage ceremony, especially if apparently legally performed, gives rise to a presumptively valid status of marriage which persists unless and until it is overthrown by evidence in an appropriate judicial proceeding. No mere claim of bigamy, whether made in a pleading or elsewhere, would establish that a marriage was bigamous.”

·         State Ex Rel. Felson v. Allen , 129 Conn. 427, 431-432, 29 A.2d 306 (1942). “The plaintiffs appeared in Greenwich before a person whom they believed to be a justice of the peace; he purported to join them in marriage, but they are unable to prove that he was authorized by the statute to do so, and they do not claim that there is any basis upon which we can hold that he was. The situation falls within the express terms of the statute, which declares such a marriage to be void.”

ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINIONS:

·         “Marriage by proxy,” 23 Op.Atty.Gen. 147 (July 1, 1943). “It is my opinion that Connecticut does not permit marriages by proxy, nor does it recognize such marriages when entered into elsewhere.”

WEST KEY NUMBER:

·         Marriage

# 23. Ceremonial marriage in general

# 26. Solemnization or celebration

# 32. Return and recording or registration

DIGEST TOPICS:

·         ALR Digest: Marriage § 15. Solemnization or celebration

·         Connecticut Family Law Citations (2002): Marriage

TEXTS & TREATISES

·         7 Arnold H. Rutkin and Kathleen A. Hogan, Connecticut Practice Series, Family Law and Practice with Forms (1999).

§ 2.3   Marriage by proxy

§ 4.11.  Formalities of ceremonies

§ 4.16.  Return and recordation

§ 4.17.  Proof of marriage

ENCYCLOPEDIAS:

·         52 Am. Jur. 2d Marriage (2000). 

§ 13.  Ceremonial marriage. Generally

§ 14.  Necessity of consummation or cohabitation

§ 15.  Proxy marriage

·         55 C.J.S. Marriage (1998).

§ 30.  Solemnization

§ 33.  Place of solemnization

§ 34.  Form of ceremony

§ 35.  Certificate and return or record

§ 36.  Mistake

• John D. Fletcher, Validity Of Marriage, 36 POF2d 441 (1983).

§§ 15-27.  Proof of valid ceremonial marriage  [ see Table 2]

·         Annotation, Validity Of Solemnized Marriage As Affected By Absence Of License Required By Statute, 61 ALR2d 847 (1958).

COMPILER:

Lawrence Cheeseman, Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Library at Middletown, One Court Street, Middletown, CT 06457. (860) 343‑6560.

SCOPE:

Bibliographic resources relating to the validity of foreign marriages in Connecticut

DEFINITION:

·          COMITY: “The principle of comity provides the basis upon which state courts give validity to divorce judgments of foreign countries. Comity permits recognition of judgments of foreign countries pursuant to international duty and convenience, with due regard for the rights of American citizens.” Baker v. Baker, 39 Conn. Sup. 66, 68,  468 A.2d 944 (1983). 

·          “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).

·         “Neither case law nor § 42b-28 suggests that courts are under any obligation to recognize a marriage which is not valid in the country in which it was obtained or which was not celebrated in the presence of the U.S. ambassador or minister to that country or a U.S. consular officer accredited to such country at a place within his consular jurisdiction.” Reddy v. Reddy, No. FA 03 0285473 (Conn. Super. Ct., J.D. New Haven at Meriden, May 17, 2005).

STATUTES:

·          Conn. Gen. Stat. (2005)

§ 46b-28. When marriages in foreign country are valid. All marriages in which one or both parties are citizens of this state, celebrated in a foreign country, shall be valid, provided: (1) Each party would have legal capacity to contract such marriage in this state and the marriage is celebrated in conformity with the law of that country; or (2) the marriage is celebrated, in the presence of the ambassador or minister to that country from the United States or in the presence of a consular officer of the United States accredited to such country, at a place within his consular jurisdiction, by any ordained or licensed clergyman engaged in the work of the ministry in any state of the United States or in any foreign country.

CASES

·         Baker v. Baker, 39 Conn.Sup. 66, 71, 468 A.2d 944 (1983) “For although the majority of states refuse to recognize the validity of a foreign divorce decree when their own jurisdictional requirements with respect to domicile are absent, most courts, when equities mandate, will give practical recognition to the foreign decree. Consequently, the party attacking the foreign decree may be effectively barred from securing judgment of its invalidity. Thus, in Chilcott v. Chilcott, 257 Cal.App.2d 868, 65 Cal.Rptr. 263 (1968), the court held that even if a wife’s Mexican divorce were invalid, her husband would be estopped to deny its validity where both parties had remarried in the belief that they were divorced.”

·          Litvaitis v. Litvaitis, 162 Conn. 540, 546, 295 A.2d 519 (1972). “In the case at bar, the court found that the defendant went to Mexico solely for the purpose of securing a divorce and that he intended to return to Connecticut. The plaintiff never submitted herself to the jurisdiction of the Mexican court. ‘To constitute domicil, the residence at the place chosen for the domicil must be actual, and to the fact of residence there must be added the intention of remaining permanently; and that place is the domicil of the person in which he has voluntarily fixed his habitation, not for a mere temporary or special purpose, but with the present intention of making it his home.’ Rice v. Rice, supra, [134 Conn. 440,] 445-46; Mills v. Mills, 119 Conn. 612, 617, 179 A. 5. It is quite obvious that the defendant, who was the only party to appear before the foreign court, was not a domiciliary of the Mexican state. The court properly refused to recognize the Mexican divorce as terminating the marriage.”

·          Catalano v. Catalano, 148 Conn. 288, 291, 170 A.2d 726 (1961). “It is the 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. Restatement, Conflict of Laws 132 (b). That exception may be expressed in the terms of a statute or by necessary implication.”

·          Fantasia v. Fantasia, 8 Conn. Supp. 25 (1940). “ . . . it is universally recognized that a marriage, valid in the jurisdiction in which it is performed, is valid everywhere unless, of course, it violates some rule of public policy, and for that reason it is concluded that the marriage involved in the present case, being valid in New York is likewise valid in Connecticut.”

WEST KEY NUMBER:

·          Marriage # 17. Laws of foreign countries

ENCYCLOPEDIAS:

·          52 Am. Jur. 2d  Marriage (2000).

§§ 62-76. Effect of conflicting foreign law

·          55 C.J.S. Marriage (1998).

§ 5.  What law governs

§ 6.  Lex loci contractus as controlling

·          John D. Fletcher, Validity Of Marriage, 36 POF2d 441 (1983).

§§ 15-27.  Proof of valid ceremonial marriage [ see Table 2]

·          John C. Williams, Annotation, Recognition By Forum State Of Marriage Which, Although Invalid Where Contracted, Would Have Been Valid If Contracted Within Forum State, 82 ALR3d 1240 (1978).

TEXTS & TREATISES