Catalano v. Catalano
148 Conn. 288 (1961)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A marriage validly celebrated in a foreign jurisdiction will not be recognized as valid in Connecticut if it violates the state's strong public policy, such as the statutory prohibition against incestuous marriages between an uncle and niece.
Facts:
- Fred Catalano, a widower and citizen of Connecticut, traveled to Italy.
- On December 8, 1951, Fred Catalano married the plaintiff, his niece Maria, who was an Italian subject.
- Although Italian law generally prohibited such marriages, the parties obtained a legal dispensation from Italian authorities, making the marriage valid in Italy.
- Following the marriage, Fred Catalano returned to Connecticut.
- In 1956, the plaintiff joined Fred Catalano in Hartford, Connecticut, where they lived as husband and wife.
- A son was born to the couple during their time living in Connecticut.
- Fred Catalano died in Connecticut in 1958.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff, Maria Catalano, applied to the Probate Court for the district of Hartford for a widow’s allowance for support from the estate of Fred Catalano.
- The Probate Court denied her application.
- The plaintiff appealed the Probate Court's decision to the Superior Court.
- The Superior Court, upon a stipulation of facts from the parties, reserved the matter for the advice of the Supreme Court of Errors 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 between an uncle and niece, validly celebrated in a foreign country, a valid marriage in Connecticut for the purposes of a widow's allowance, where Connecticut statutes declare such marriages void and criminal?
Opinions:
Majority - Murphy, J.
No. The marriage, though valid in Italy, is not valid in Connecticut because it contravenes the strong public policy of the state. The general rule that a marriage valid where celebrated is valid everywhere has an exception for incestuous marriages that are contrary to the strong public policy of the domicile. Connecticut has continuously prohibited and declared void marriages between uncles and nieces since 1702. The state's public policy is further evidenced by a statute criminalizing such a relationship as incest, punishable by up to ten years in prison. Furthermore, the state's statute validating foreign marriages (§ 46-6) only applies if the parties had the legal capacity to contract the marriage in Connecticut, which the plaintiff and the decedent did not.
Dissenting - Mellitz, J.
Yes. The marriage should be recognized as valid because it was lawfully entered into at the plaintiff's domicile without any intent to evade Connecticut law. The plaintiff was an innocent party, and invalidating her marriage status and bastardizing her child is an unnecessarily harsh result that should only be compelled by an explicit legislative act. The majority misinterprets the term "legal capacity" in § 46-6, which should refer to general capacity (e.g., age, marital status) rather than consanguinity. The legislature's failure to adopt the Uniform Marriage Evasion Act indicates it did not intend for Connecticut law to invalidate all foreign marriages that would be prohibited if celebrated within the state. Other states have recognized similar marriages, suggesting the public policy is not as absolute as the majority contends.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the public policy exception to the conflict of laws principle of lex loci celebrationis (the law of the place of celebration governs marriage validity). The court's decision establishes that a state's deeply-rooted, statutory prohibition against certain marriages, especially when coupled with criminal penalties, constitutes a strong public policy sufficient to override the general rule of recognizing foreign marriages. This precedent empowers forum states to refuse recognition of a status validly created elsewhere if it offends fundamental local morals and laws. Future cases involving foreign marriages that conflict with domestic law will look to this decision for guidance on how to weigh the strength of the forum state's public policy.
Unlock the full brief for Catalano v. Catalano