Lacoste v. Guidroz
47 La. Ann. 295 (1895)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A marriage entered into under duress from a threat of criminal prosecution is voidable, not void, and is valid unless the threatened prosecution was malicious and without probable cause. Because such a marriage is considered valid until judicially annulled, spousal testimonial incompetency rules apply to the parties in the annulment proceeding.
Facts:
- Honoré Lacoste and Miss Guidroz had a prior relationship.
- Friends and connections of Guidroz accused Lacoste of criminal conduct related to their relationship.
- Guidroz's connections threatened Lacoste, a minor, with prosecution for a felony if he did not marry her.
- Under this threat, Lacoste and his mother consented to the marriage.
- Lacoste and Guidroz participated in a marriage ceremony, which was officiated by a judge and resulted in a signed marriage certificate.
- Lacoste also alleged that his consent was conditioned upon an agreement for an immediate divorce, which did not occur.
- Following the marriage and the initiation of this lawsuit, Lacoste traveled to Europe.
Procedural Posture:
- Honoré Lacoste (plaintiff) sued Miss Guidroz (defendant) in a Louisiana District Court (trial court) seeking to annul their marriage.
- During the trial, the court ruled that Lacoste was incompetent to testify against his wife and excluded his testimony.
- The trial court rendered a judgment in favor of Guidroz, upholding the validity of the marriage.
- Lacoste (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Louisiana.
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 threat of criminal prosecution used to induce a party's consent to marriage constitute sufficient duress to invalidate the marriage contract?
Opinions:
Majority - Nicholls, O. J.
No, a marriage is not invalidated by a threat of criminal prosecution unless that threat constitutes an unjust and illegal use of legal process. The court first held that Lacoste was an incompetent witness in his own annulment proceeding. Under Louisiana law, a husband cannot testify against his wife. Because a marriage induced by duress is merely voidable (not void ab initio), it remains legally valid until a court declares it null. Therefore, Lacoste is considered Guidroz's husband for the purposes of the suit and cannot testify. On the substantive issue of duress, the court explained that a threat of 'legal constraint' or of doing what one has a 'right to do'—such as pursuing a lawful criminal prosecution—does not invalidate a contract. However, consent obtained through threats of using 'the mere forms of law to cover coercive proceedings for an unjust and illegal cause' is invalid. The court initially found insufficient evidence that the threatened prosecution was unjust or illegal. Upon rehearing, however, the court concluded that it had not given sufficient weight to Lacoste's youth and the need to determine the factual basis for the criminal threat. Therefore, the court reversed the lower court's judgment and remanded the case for a factual determination of the parties' prior relations to ascertain whether there was probable cause for the threatened prosecution.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the critical distinction between void and voidable marriages, establishing that a marriage procured by duress is voidable and remains valid until annulled. This has the significant procedural consequence of triggering rules like spousal testimonial incompetency during the annulment proceeding itself. The decision also refines the legal standard for duress in the context of marriage, requiring courts to look beyond the mere existence of a threat to the substantive merit of the underlying legal claim. By remanding the case for a factual inquiry into probable cause, the court sets a precedent that the validity of consent hinges on whether the threat of prosecution was a legitimate exercise of a legal right or a malicious abuse of process.
