Whitney v. Whitney
1942 OK 268, 134 P.2d 357, 192 Okla. 174 (1942)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A bigamous marriage is void ab initio under Oklahoma law, and while a court may use divorce proceedings to judicially declare its nullity, it lacks the statutory authority to adjudicate property rights or award attorney's fees as if it were a valid marriage; such rights must be settled under equitable principles, treating the relationship as a quasi-partnership.
Facts:
- In 1913, Wayne Whitney married a woman to whom he remained legally married throughout the events of this case.
- On October 1, 1928, Mary P. Whitney and Wayne Whitney began a relationship and held themselves out as husband and wife, though no marriage ceremony occurred.
- During their cohabitation, Mary P. Whitney and Wayne Whitney had children and acquired property together.
- Mary P. Whitney was unaware of Wayne Whitney's prior, undissolved marriage.
- After litigation commenced between them, the parties entered into a written contract to settle and adjust their property rights.
- Mary P. Whitney alleged that after the contract was signed, the parties reconciled and resumed cohabitation for a period of time.
Procedural Posture:
- Mary P. Whitney sued Wayne Whitney for divorce in Oklahoma district court, initially alleging extreme cruelty.
- Wayne Whitney filed an answer asserting that their marriage was invalid because he had a living wife from a prior, undissolved marriage.
- During the trial, Mary P. Whitney amended her petition to seek a divorce on the ground that Wayne had a former wife living at the time of their subsequent marriage.
- The trial court granted the divorce on the ground of bigamy.
- In a subsequent hearing, the trial court divided the parties' property, set aside a settlement contract they had entered into, and ordered Wayne Whitney to pay Mary P. Whitney's attorney's fees.
- Wayne Whitney (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment concerning the property division and attorney's fees to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
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 trial court, when granting a divorce on the grounds that one party had a living spouse from a prior, undissolved marriage, have the authority under divorce statutes to divide property and award attorney's fees?
Opinions:
Majority - Bayless, J.
No. A court does not have the authority under divorce statutes to divide property and award attorney's fees when the underlying marriage is void due to bigamy. The Oklahoma Constitution's prohibition on polygamous marriages renders such unions void from inception, not merely voidable. While the Legislature permits the use of divorce proceedings as a mechanism to judicially declare the marriage's nullity, this does not confer the full scope of statutory powers applicable to the dissolution of a valid marriage, such as alimony or statutory property division. Instead, the court's power is equitable, and the parties' property rights must be determined by treating their relationship as a quasi-partnership. Because the parties were partners, not legal spouses, a property settlement contract they entered into is binding, and the rule that reconciliation vitiates such agreements does not apply. Consequently, the trial court erred by ignoring their contract and by awarding statutory attorney's fees, which are not available where no valid marital relation existed.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Gibson, J.
No, but the attorney's fee award was proper. While the majority is correct that the marriage was void and property rights should be handled equitably, the trial court's award of an attorney's fee was appropriate. The Legislature, by authorizing a divorce action on the ground of a pre-existing marriage, intended to allow the procedural mechanisms of divorce actions, including the statutory provision for awarding attorney's fees (12 O. S. 1941 § 1276), to apply in such cases. The contract between the parties did not cover attorney's fees for the divorce action itself.
Dissent - Arnold, J.
Yes. A court does have the authority under divorce statutes to divide property and award attorney's fees in this situation. By specifically listing a pre-existing marriage as a ground for divorce, the Legislature intended to grant the aggrieved spouse all the protections and remedies available in a standard divorce action. To hold otherwise undermines the legislative intent to protect an innocent party who was fraudulently induced into a void marriage. The court should treat the parties as if they were in a valid marriage for the purpose of property division, child support, and attorney's fees to achieve an equitable result and protect the innocent spouse and children from the bigamist's fraudulent and criminal conduct.
Analysis:
This case establishes a critical distinction in Oklahoma law between the dissolution of a valid marriage and the judicial declaration of a void one. By ruling that statutory divorce remedies do not apply to void bigamous marriages, the court limits the power of trial courts in such cases to equitable remedies, primarily treating the relationship as a partnership. This decision prevents an 'innocent' party in a bigamous marriage from accessing marital property rights, like a statutory share of jointly acquired property, and instead requires them to prove their contributions as a 'partner.' The ruling solidifies the principle that a marriage deemed void ab initio by the state constitution cannot be given partial legal effect through the application of statutory divorce laws.
Unlock the full brief for Whitney v. Whitney