Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Libraries
Copyright
© 2000-2008, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. All rights reserved.
Marriage in Connecticut
A Guide to Resources in the Law Library
· “ [M]arriage . . . is defined as the union of one man and one woman.” 46b-38nn (2008).
· “The State makes itself a party to all marriages, in that it requires the marriage contract to be entered into before officers designated by itself, and with certain formalities which it has prescribed.” Dennis v. Dennis, 68 Conn. 186, 196 (1896).
· “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.” Ross v. Ross, No. FA97 0162587 S (Ct. Super. J.D. Stamford-Norwalk, Aug. 10, 1998), 22 Conn. L. Rptr. 637.
· “Marital status, of course, arises not from the simple declarations of persons nor from the undisputed claims of litigants. . . . It is rather created and dissolved only according to law.” Hames v. Hames, 163 Conn. 588, 592-593, 316 A.2d 379 (1972).
· “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.” Perlstein v. Perlstein, 152 Conn. 152, 157, 204 A.2d 909 (1964).
· Effect of annulment: “Our annulment statute itself (46-28), although referring to ‘void or voidable’ marriages, provides that the court may grant alimony, and custody and support orders for any minor child, as in the case of divorce. Public Acts 1963, No. 105, amended the section by adding a sentence declaring that ‘[t]he issue of any void or voidable marriage shall be deemed legitimate.’ These provisions are irreconcilable with the theory that even a marriage claimed to be void is, or upon the rendition of a decree of annulment retroactively becomes, an absolute nullity ab initio so that nothing in the way of a status or res ever flowed from the marriage.” Perlstein v. Perlstein, 152 Conn. 152, 159, 204 A.2d 909 (1964).
· “A marriage is dissolved only by (1) the death of one of the parties or (2) a decree of annulment or dissolution of the marriage by a court of competent jurisdiction.” Conn. Gen. Stats. § 46b-40(a) (2008).
Contents of this chapter
§ 3. Who May Perform a Marriage
§ 5. Foreign and Out-of-state Marriages in Connecticut
Tables in this chapter
Table 2: Proof of Valid Ceremonial Marriage
Who May Marry
A Guide to Resources in the Law Library
|
SCOPE: |
|
|
CURRENCY |
· 2008 Edition
|
|
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. (2008) § 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 |
· Birmingham v. Stanek, No. HHB CV 06 4010372 S (Conn. Super. Ct. J.D. New Britain at New Britain) 43 Conn.L.Rptr. 506 (July 30, 2007) 2007 WL 1677097 Conn. Super. 2007, 2007 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1349 (Ct. April 12, 2007). “In Hames v. Hames, supra, 163 Conn. [588,] 598, the Supreme Court stated, ‘[i]t has long been settled that unless a statute expressly declares a marriage to be void, as in the case of an incestuous marriage (General Statutes § 46-1), or one attempted to be celebrated by an unauthorized person (General Statutes § 46-3), deficiencies will render the marriage dissoluble rather than void.’ However, the Supreme Court also stated, immediately thereafter, that ‘[s]tatutory deficiencies are, of course, to be distinguished from substantive defects such as lack of the consent which, even at common law, is deemed essential to forming the relationship." Id., 163 Conn. 598.’”
· 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 (2008): 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. Email
|
A Guide to Resources in the Law Library
|
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) (2008).
|
|
SEE ALSO: |
|
|
STATUTES: |
· Conn. Gen. Stat. (2008) § 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 court further explained that ‘[i]n the absence of express language in the governing statute declaring a marriage void for failure to observe statutory requirement . . . such a marriage, though imperfect, is dissoluble rather than void.’ Id., 349. The court 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.’ See also Hames v. Hames, supra, 163 Conn. 599 (interpreting statutes not to make void a marriage consummated after the issuance of a license 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 (2008): 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. EMAIL
|
Premarital Blood TestsREPEALED: 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 |
|
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 |
Who May
Perform a Marriage
A Guide to Resources in the Law Library
|
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) (2008).
|
|
STATUTES: |
· Conn. Gen. Stat. (2008) § 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. Email
|
The Marriage Ceremony
A Guide to Resources in the Law Library
|
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. (2008) § 46b-24a. Validation of marriage occurring in town other than town where license issued |