Arnelle v. Fisher
647 So. 2d 1047, 1994 WL 708167 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A non-party relative lacks standing to annul a marriage after a spouse's death if the marriage is merely voidable due to undue influence, as voidable marriages cannot be attacked post-mortem.
Facts:
- In 1990, William E. Fisher was diagnosed with terminal prostatic cancer.
- Joyce Ann Fortson (later Fisher) met Mr. Fisher when she was one of the nurses assigned to care for him at Princeton Hospital.
- Several weeks after Mr. Fisher's discharge, he and Ms. Fortson began visiting each other, and Ms. Fortson eventually moved in with Mr. Fisher.
- Mr. Fisher and Ms. Fortson decided to wed and subsequently got married.
- Approximately one month after their wedding and nine days before Mr. Fisher's death, he executed a will naming Ms. Fortson's four children as beneficiaries, despite having met them on only one occasion.
- Mr. Fisher died after being married to Ms. Fortson for 41 days.
- Elizabeth G. Arnelle is Mr. Fisher's first cousin.
Procedural Posture:
- Joyce Ann Fortson Fisher filed a petition for administration of William E. Fisher's estate.
- Elizabeth G. Arnelle, Mr. Fisher's first cousin, filed a petition in the trial court (court of first instance) for annulment of marriage, revocation of will, determination of beneficiaries, removal of personal representative, accounting, and appointment of new personal representative, alleging undue influence.
- A non-jury trial was held on November 24, 1993, in the trial court.
- The trial court orally found that Ms. Fortson was conniving and exhibited undue influence, but also that Mr. Fisher had mental capacity, and that the marriage was voidable, not void.
- The trial court issued a written order finding that Mr. Fisher did not lack mental capacity to marry, the marriage was voidable, and annulment of a voidable marriage could only be sought by one of the parties during their lifetimes, therefore Elizabeth Arnelle had no standing.
- Elizabeth G. Arnelle appealed the trial court's decision to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District, as the appellant, with Joyce Ann Fisher as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a deceased's first cousin have standing to sue for annulment of a marriage after the spouse's death, based solely on allegations that consent to the marriage was obtained through undue influence?
Opinions:
Majority - Harris, Chief Judge
No, a deceased's first cousin does not have standing to sue for annulment of a marriage after the spouse's death based solely on allegations that consent to the marriage was obtained through undue influence, because such a marriage is merely voidable and cannot be attacked after the death of either party. Chief Judge Harris, writing for the majority, affirmed the trial court's decision, distinguishing between 'void' and 'voidable' marriages. A void marriage can be attacked at any time, even after death, by anyone. However, a voidable marriage is 'good for every purpose' and can only be attacked in a direct proceeding during the lifetime of both parties and only by one of those parties. Upon the death of either party, a voidable marriage becomes valid ab initio (from the beginning), as established in Kuehmsted v. Turnwall. The court relied on Hoffman v. Kohns, which, referencing Tyson v. State, held that consent obtained by undue influence renders a marriage 'merely voidable' and thus immune from attack after a party's death. The trial court had found that Mr. Fisher did not lack the mental capacity to enter the marriage, a finding supported by the record. The court distinguished Savage v. Olson, which allowed heirs to attack a marriage post-mortem, because Savage involved a combination of fraud and diminished mental capacity, which could render a marriage void. Since Arnelle's petition was based solely on undue influence and Mr. Fisher was found to have mental capacity, the marriage was merely voidable, precluding Arnelle's standing.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the critical distinction between void and voidable marriages in Florida law, particularly regarding standing for annulment after a party's death. It clarifies that undue influence alone, without accompanying mental incapacity, results in a voidable marriage that cannot be challenged by third parties or after the death of a spouse. This limits the ability of relatives or heirs to challenge marriages for estate planning purposes, emphasizing the deceased's presumed intent once a voidable marriage is affirmed by death.
