In re the Estate of Santolino
2005 N.J. Super. LEXIS 400, 384 N.J. Super. 567, 895 A.2d 506 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A third party with a direct financial interest, such as an heir, may posthumously challenge the validity of a marriage on grounds that would render it void ab initio, such as lack of capacity to consent, but not on grounds that would merely render it voidable, such as impotency, which are personal to the parties of the marriage.
Facts:
- In January 2000, Lillian E. Centeno began living in Manuel Santolino's home as a tenant.
- On March 11, 2004, Santolino, then 81 years old, was hospitalized and diagnosed with lung cancer.
- Santolino was released from the hospital on April 1, 2004.
- On April 27, 2004, Santolino married Centeno, who was 46 years old.
- On May 11, 2004, Santolino was readmitted to the hospital.
- On May 20, 2004, Santolino died, less than one month after the marriage.
- Santolino died intestate (without a will), and his sister, Mercedes Tabor, was his sole heir.
Procedural Posture:
- After Manuel Santolino died intestate, his widow, Lillian E. Centeno, filed a verified complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, for letters of administration.
- The decedent's sister and sole heir, Mercedes Tabor, filed a caveat against the granting of administration, challenging the validity of the marriage.
- Tabor asserted that the marriage should be annulled on the grounds of impotency, lack of capacity to consent, fraud, and general equity.
- Centeno, the petitioner, filed a motion to dismiss Tabor's challenge for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, arguing that the validity of the marriage could not be questioned after the decedent's death.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
May an heir of a decedent's estate bring a posthumous action to annul the decedent's marriage on the grounds that the decedent lacked the mental capacity to consent to the marriage?
Opinions:
Majority - Lyons, P.J.Ch.
Yes. An heir may bring a posthumous action to annul a marriage on grounds of lack of capacity to consent because such a defect renders a marriage void ab initio, not merely voidable. The court distinguished between different grounds for annulment under N.J.S.A. 2A:34-1. Claims like impotency are personal to the spouses and create a voidable marriage that cannot be challenged after death. However, claims like a complete lack of mental capacity to consent create a void marriage—one that was never legally valid from the start. The court reasoned that the statute's text for lack of capacity does not include the lifetime limitation found in other subsections, indicating the Legislature did not intend to bar posthumous challenges for this fundamental defect. This interpretation aligns with the common law principle that void marriages can be attacked by interested third parties at any time, even after the death of a spouse.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the application of New Jersey's annulment statute by incorporating the historical common law distinction between void and voidable marriages. It establishes that claims attacking the fundamental validity of a marriage, such as lack of capacity, survive the death of a spouse and can be brought by interested heirs. This precedent is significant in estate litigation, as it provides a legal avenue to challenge so-called 'deathbed marriages' where a party's vulnerability and capacity to consent are questionable. The ruling protects the interests of heirs against potentially predatory or fraudulent marriages entered into shortly before a death.
