Schibi v. Schibi
14 A.L.R. 2d 620, 69 A.2d 831, 136 Conn. 196 (1949)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A marriage is valid and cannot be annulled for lack of mutual consent simply because the parties entered into it with a private agreement not to cohabit and to seek an annulment shortly thereafter, especially when the purpose was to legitimize a child.
Facts:
- In late 1946, the defendant informed the plaintiff, Schibi, that she was pregnant with his child.
- The parties met with an attorney and agreed to a marriage ceremony in New York for the purpose of giving a name to the unborn child.
- They further agreed that the defendant would apply for an annulment of the marriage six weeks after the ceremony.
- The plaintiff did not intend for them to live together or assume a husband-and-wife relationship, and the defendant was aware of his intentions.
- On January 26, 1947, the parties went through a marriage ceremony in New York City.
- The parties never cohabited after the marriage ceremony.
- A child was born on July 1, 1947, and the plaintiff paid for birth expenses and contributed to the child's support.
- The defendant subsequently refused to proceed with the agreed-upon annulment action.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff, Schibi, brought an action in a Connecticut trial court seeking an annulment of his marriage to the defendant.
- The defendant did not appear in the action.
- The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the defendant, upholding the marriage.
- The plaintiff appealed the trial court's judgment to 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:
Does an otherwise valid marriage lack the requisite mutual consent when the parties secretly agree beforehand that they will not cohabit and will seek an annulment shortly after the ceremony for the sole purpose of legitimizing a child?
Opinions:
Majority - Brown, J.
No. A marriage is not void for lack of mutual consent despite a private agreement between the parties to not live together and to seek a later annulment. The court reasoned that by participating in the marriage ceremony, the plaintiff contemplated creating the legal status of marriage, at least for a limited period and for the specific purpose of legitimizing his child. This act of entering the ceremony constitutes the necessary legal consent. Annulment would render the marriage void from the beginning, thereby defeating the very purpose of the marriage, which was to give the child the status of a legitimate birth. Furthermore, private antenuptial agreements designed to negate the fundamental obligations of a marriage are generally considered void as against public policy.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the legal principle that marriage is a public status, not merely a private contract that can be easily modified or negated by secret agreements. The court prioritizes the objective act of the marriage ceremony and its public policy implications—particularly the legitimization of a child—over the subjective, private intentions of the parties. This decision establishes that once a marriage is legally solemnized, its validity cannot be undermined by a prenuptial agreement that the marriage will not be 'real' or permanent, signaling to future litigants that courts are highly reluctant to annul marriages based on such claims.
