Copeland v. Stone
1992 OK 154, 842 p.2d 754, 63 O.B.A.J. 3496 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An out-of-state marriage contracted during Oklahoma's six-month statutory prohibition against remarriage following a divorce is valid, as the statute's prohibition applies only to marriages celebrated within Oklahoma.
Facts:
- Etzell H. Copeland obtained a divorce from his first wife in Oklahoma on December 10, 1986.
- On January 5, 1987, less than one month later, Copeland and Dora Stone were married in Nevada.
- The couple stayed in Nevada for three days before returning to Oklahoma.
- Copeland and Stone lived together in Oklahoma for approximately three weeks, ceasing to live together in January 1987.
- The six-month prohibition on remarriage from Copeland's first divorce expired on June 10, 1987.
- Copeland married a third woman on July 22, 1987.
- No children were born of the marriage between Copeland and Stone.
Procedural Posture:
- Etzell H. Copeland filed for divorce from Dora Stone in an Oklahoma trial court.
- The trial court conducted a hearing to determine the validity of the marriage.
- The trial court found the marriage void, reasoning that the couple did not cohabit beyond the six-month prohibitory period required to ripen the union into a common law marriage.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision.
- The Supreme Court of Oklahoma granted certiorari to review the case.
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 contracted in another state valid in Oklahoma if it was performed during the six-month prohibitory period following an Oklahoma divorce decree, pursuant to 12 O.S.1981 § 1280?
Opinions:
Majority - Kauger, J.
Yes, a marriage contracted in another state during the six-month prohibitory period is valid in Oklahoma. The express language of 12 O.S.1981 § 1280 prohibits only those marriages celebrated 'in this state' within six months of a divorce. The statute separately makes it unlawful to 'cohabit... in this state' if the marriage took place elsewhere, but it does not invalidate the out-of-state marriage itself. A 1969 legislative amendment removed language prohibiting remarriage 'in any state,' demonstrating a clear intent to limit the statute's effect to marriages within Oklahoma. Therefore, prior case law requiring cohabitation beyond the six-month period to validate such marriages is expressly overruled as it failed to account for this statutory change.
Concurring - Opala, C.J.
The Chief Justice concurred only in the result. He reasoned that regardless of whether the marriage was valid, void, or voidable at its inception, it is a proper subject for judicial dissolution. Therefore, the trial court was in error for refusing to entertain the divorce suit, and the case should be reversed and remanded for that reason alone, without needing to definitively rule on the marriage's validity under the statute.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the extraterritorial effect of Oklahoma's post-divorce remarriage statute, establishing that the prohibition does not attach to the individuals but rather to the act of marrying within the state. By overruling prior inconsistent case law that failed to recognize a key 1969 statutory amendment, the court provided legal certainty and aligned Oklahoma with the majority of jurisdictions holding that such waiting periods do not invalidate marriages legally performed in other states. The ruling distinguishes between the validity of an out-of-state marriage and the legality of cohabitation within Oklahoma during the prohibitory period, reinforcing the principle of strict statutory interpretation.
