Dacunzo v. Edgye
1955 N.J. LEXIS 216, 19 N.J. 443, 117 A.2d 508 (1955)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under N.J.S.A. 37:1-10, which requires both a license and a ceremony for a valid marriage, a purported ceremonial marriage that is void at its inception due to a pre-existing impediment, such as an undissolved prior marriage, cannot be validated by the parties' continued cohabitation after the impediment is removed.
Facts:
- The appellant and respondent met in 1944 and planned to marry in 1945.
- In May 1945, the appellant informed a Catholic priest that she was single and had never been married.
- When applying for a marriage license, the appellant stated under oath that she was single.
- On June 24, 1945, the parties were ceremonially married in New Jersey.
- At the time of this marriage, the appellant was still legally married to a man named Byrne, as her divorce decree nisi from that marriage did not become final until July 26, 1945.
- The parties cohabited as husband and wife and had two children together before separating on February 10, 1952.
- In September 1951, the appellant first informed the respondent that she had been previously married and divorced.
- The respondent did not learn that the appellant had a husband living at the time of their marriage until early 1953.
Procedural Posture:
- The respondent (husband) filed an action for annulment against the appellant (wife) in the New Jersey Superior Court, Chancery Division.
- The appellant filed a counterclaim for separate maintenance for herself and the two children of the marriage.
- The trial court entered a judgment of nullity, finding the marriage void, and dismissed the appellant's counterclaim.
- The appellant appealed the trial court's judgment to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
- The Supreme Court of New Jersey granted certification to review the decision of the Appellate Division.
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 ceremonial marriage, which was void at its inception because one party was still legally married to another, become a valid common-law marriage through continued cohabitation after the prior marriage is dissolved, notwithstanding a statute rendering any marriage without a valid license and ceremony absolutely void?
Opinions:
Majority - Oliphant, J.
No. A ceremonial marriage that is void due to a pre-existing impediment cannot become valid through continued cohabitation after the impediment is removed. The New Jersey statute, N.J.S.A. 37:1-10, unequivocally abolished common-law marriage and established mandatory prerequisites for a valid marriage: obtaining a license and participating in an authorized ceremony. The statute's language states that failure to comply with both prerequisites renders a purported marriage 'absolutely void.' Because the appellant was still married when she and the respondent had their ceremony, their marriage was void from the beginning. A void act has no legal validity and cannot be retroactively cured by subsequent events like cohabitation. The common-law doctrine that validated such unions upon removal of an impediment was completely abrogated by the statute's clear and sweeping command. While this strict interpretation may lead to harsh outcomes in some cases, that is a matter for the Legislature to address, not the courts.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the complete abolition of common-law marriage in New Jersey, including the 'removal of impediment' doctrine. It establishes that the statutory requirements for a valid marriage are not mere formalities but mandatory, substantive prerequisites. The court's strict statutory interpretation means that a ceremonial marriage that is void ab initio cannot be revived by subsequent conduct, creating a bright-line rule that prioritizes legislative intent over equitable considerations for parties who may have acted in good faith. This ruling impacts property rights, inheritance, and support claims by clarifying that no marital rights can arise from a relationship that did not strictly comply with the marriage statute at its outset, forcing parties who discover an impediment to re-marry formally.
