Evelyn B. Carabetta v. Joseph F. Carabetta
182 Conn. 344 (1980) (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A marriage that is properly solemnized is not void for failure to obtain a marriage license unless the governing statute expressly declares such a marriage to be void.
Facts:
- On August 25, 1955, Evelyn B. Carabetta and Joseph F. Carabetta exchanged marital vows before a priest in the rectory of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel Church in Meriden.
- The ceremony was conducted according to the rite of the Roman Catholic Church.
- The parties failed to obtain a marriage license prior to the ceremony.
- Following the ceremony, they lived together as husband and wife.
- The couple raised a family of four children, whose birth certificates all listed Joseph F. Carabetta as the father.
- Until the present legal action, Joseph F. Carabetta had never denied that he and Evelyn B. Carabetta were married.
Procedural Posture:
- Evelyn B. Carabetta filed an action for the dissolution of her marriage to Joseph F. Carabetta in a Connecticut trial court.
- Joseph F. Carabetta filed a motion to dismiss the action, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because no valid marriage ever existed.
- The trial court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, concluding that the lack of a marriage license was a fatal flaw that rendered the marriage invalid.
- Evelyn B. Carabetta, the plaintiff, appealed the trial court's judgment of dismissal to the Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a marriage, solemnized according to the forms and usages of a religious denomination, void under Connecticut law solely because the parties failed to obtain a marriage license?
Opinions:
Majority - Peters, J.
No. A marriage properly solemnized but lacking a license is not void because the legislature has not expressly declared it to be so. The court reasoned that the legislature has plenary power to define marriage and has selectively chosen when to declare a marriage void for failing to meet certain requirements. For example, the statute on solemnization expressly states that marriages performed by unauthorized individuals are void, but the statute requiring a marriage license contains no such language. Instead, it only imposes a fine on the official who performs the ceremony without a license. Citing its own precedent, particularly Gould v. Gould, the court affirmed the principle that in the absence of express statutory language of voidness, a failure to observe a statutory requirement renders a marriage imperfect or dissoluble, but not void. The policy of the law is strongly against voiding a marriage entered into in good faith and followed by cohabitation.
Concurring - Bogdanski, J.
No. I concur with the result and would hold that the marriage is valid. The court had jurisdiction over the subject matter because the parties had an existing marriage for twenty-five years. A relevant statute at the time expressly provided that 'all marriages which shall be solemnized according to the forms and usages of any religious denomination in this state shall be valid.' This language directly applies and validates the marriage in this case. Furthermore, there is a very strong legal presumption in favor of the validity of existing marriages, a presumption which grows stronger over time and especially when the legitimacy of children is at stake.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant rule of statutory construction for marriage laws in Connecticut, reinforcing a strong public policy in favor of upholding marriages. By distinguishing between 'directory' formalities (like licensing) and 'mandatory' substantive requirements, the court clarifies that a marriage will not be invalidated by a procedural defect unless the legislature explicitly uses the word 'void.' This decision protects the stability of long-term relationships and the legitimacy of children from being undone by technical noncompliance with statutory formalities. It places the burden on the legislature to be absolutely clear if it intends for such a defect to have the drastic consequence of voiding a marriage.
Unlock the full brief for Evelyn B. Carabetta v. Joseph F. Carabetta