Clara and Jesse were married
for 13 years. Jesse left to go live with another woman.
He asked for a divorce, but
Clara refused (this was back in the days before no fault divorce).
A few months later, Clara met
Michael and wanted to marry him. The pair went down to Mexico where Clara
got a divorce decree from a Mexican Court.
Jesse didn't have a problem
with this. In fact, he made a deal with Clara not to pay any alimony
because Michael had promised to take care of her.
Clara and Michael were married
in New Jersey. A few years after that Clara moved out and filed for
divorce against Michael in New Jersey.
Michael countered that he
couldn't get a divorce from Clara because he was never legally married to
her.
Michael argued that the
Mexican divorce was not legal, so his marriage to Clara was void.
The divorce was ex parte.
Clara argued that she had
acted in reliance of the divorce and so it should be given full faith
and credit in New Jersey.
The Trial Court found that the
Mexican divorce was not legal.
The Trial Court found that
the divorce was invalid, so Clara's marriage to Michael was void.
The Court found that Michael
was estopped from attacking the validity of the Mexican divorce because
he accepted his marriage as valid for years. (although the court could
(and did) raise the issue sua sponte).
The Appellate Court affirmed.
The New Jersey Supreme Court
reversed.
The New Jersey Supreme Court
found that Michael had knowingly participated in Clara and Jesse's
divorce, and had accepted the benefits of his subsequent marriage.
Therefore it would be against public policy to allow Michael to weasel
his way out of his obligations by attacking the validity of the previous
divorce.
Basically this case said that,
under certain conditions, if all the parties act in reliance of a legal
fact (Clara's divorce), and accept that legal fact as being true, then
those parties cannot later turn around and say that the legal fact is
untrue (aka estoppel).
Note that the Court did not
consider whether the Mexican divorce was legal or not. As far as they
were concerned, as long as the parties acted as if it were legal, then
for all practical purposes it was legal.
Btw, there is a strong
presumption that a marriage is valid. In order to challenge it, you
need clear and convincing evidence
that the marriage was invalid.
If Clara had lost, she might
have still been able to get something from Michael as a putative spouse.
