Marital Support and anullment

[BelizeBreeze]

What is the name of your state? Post was from MISSOURI

I don't know why the question and answers were deleted, but I did more research on the post of the woman who was divorced in 2001 with a spousal maintenance (modifiable) from Missouri, remarried in 2003 in kansas and subsequently had that marriage anulled.

The question was, can her ex (from the first marriage and against whome the current court ordered support was due) not only stop paying support, but can he do so without further court action.

And the unqualified answer is YES, according to Missouri statutes.

IN Glass v. Glass, 546 S.W.2d 738 IMo. App. W.D. 1977), The Missouri Court of Applease, Western District, noted for the first time the issue of whether or not a subsequent marriage of a spouse, later annulled, revived the obligation of the first spouse to pay maintenance under the original decree. The court therein specifically stated that the 'annulled marriage' constituted a remarriage wihin the meaning of RSMo 452.075 1986, so as to relieve the former spouse of any further obligations.

452.370.2 RSMo Supp. 1988.
"We conclude, therefore, that remarriage within Sec. 452.075 refers to the ceremony of marriage and not to the status or relationship - valid, voidable or void - which actually results."

Glass was followed in Desloge v. Desloge, 617 S.W.2d 486, 488 (Mo.App. E.D. 1981). Therein the court held that the ex-husband's maintenance payments to the ex-wife automatically terminated on her remarriage as 452.370.2 dictates. The court also refused to allow either an implied agreements or an exclusionary reference to justify continued maintenance payments in direct contravention of said statutory section.

Furthermore, the wife owes a DUTY to the court to inform said court of the remarriage and failure to do so shifted the burden upon the wife to provide statutory support for the court to continue an order expressly terminated by statute.

In this case, as I suggested, the maintenance order ended immediately upon the remarriage of the wife without further court action and in failing in her duty to the court, the wife can and should be held accountable for the fraud perpetrated both upon the ex-spouse and the court.

 

[Bali Hai]

What is the name of your state? Post was from MISSOURI

I don't know why the question and answers were deleted, but I did more research on the post of the woman who was divorced in 2001 with a spousal maintenance (modifiable) from Missouri, remarried in 2003 in kansas and subsequently had that marriage anulled.

The question was, can her ex (from the first marriage and against whome the current court ordered support was due) not only stop paying support, but can he do so without further court action.

And the unqualified answer is YES, according to Missouri statutes.

IN Glass v. Glass, 546 S.W.2d 738 IMo. App. W.D. 1977), The Missouri Court of Applease, Western District, noted for the first time the issue of whether or not a subsequent marriage of a spouse, later annulled, revived the obligation of the first spouse to pay maintenance under the original decree. The court therein specifically stated that the 'annulled marriage' constituted a remarriage wihin the meaning of RSMo 452.075 1986, so as to relieve the former spouse of any further obligations.

452.370.2 RSMo Supp. 1988.
"We conclude, therefore, that remarriage within Sec. 452.075 refers to the ceremony of marriage and not to the status or relationship - valid, voidable or void - which actually results."

Glass was followed in Desloge v. Desloge, 617 S.W.2d 486, 488 (Mo.App. E.D. 1981). Therein the court held that the ex-husband's maintenance payments to the ex-wife automatically terminated on her remarriage as 452.370.2 dictates. The court also refused to allow either an implied agreements or an exclusionary reference to justify continued maintenance payments in direct contravention of said statutory section.

Furthermore, the wife owes a DUTY to the court to inform said court of the remarriage and failure to do so shifted the burden upon the wife to provide statutory support for the court to continue an order expressly terminated by statute.

In this case, as I suggested, the maintenance order ended immediately upon the remarriage of the wife without further court action and in failing in her duty to the court, the wife can and should be held accountable for the fraud perpetrated both upon the ex-spouse and the court.

Thank you Counselor. I'm sure that OP was looking for a different determination, but there are those here watching that appreciate your hard work at research and neutral stand on this particular issue.

 

[AL HR]

Just curious, but would she also owe her exhusband all the support he sent starting from the date of the marriage since it seems she never had it stopped at that time?

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Just curious, but would she also owe her exhusband all the support he sent starting from the date of the marriage since it seems she never had it stopped at that time?

According to MY attorney and my feelings on the issue, yes. That's the fraud complaint.

 

[cestlouise]

US Marriage Laws - ie annulment

http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/annulment_laws/index.shtml

 

[BelizeBreeze]

http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/annulment_laws/index.shtml

what does this have to do with your situation?

 

[nextwife]

http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/annulment_laws/index.shtml

Poster, nobody is questioning either whether an annulment occurred, or whether there was reason for an annullment to occur.

BB is posting case law that establishes that WHEN there is a marriage that is annulled, it counts as marriage, nonetheless, (as regards to meeting the criteria of having married) when there is a divorce decree that calls for cessation of SS upon remarriage.

And that having continued to collect SS after remarriage would be fraud, and the payor likely entitled to reimbursement of SS that should not have been recieved.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Oh brother! No wonder he got rid of you.

And by the way, you should know to whom you are speaking.

Like the poor me crap about being disabled.

 

[nextwife]

What does remarriage and annulment LAW have to do with disability challenges?

(As if I know nothing about disability, both communication disability and mobilty issues)

 

[BelizeBreeze]

What does remarriage and annulment LAW have to do with disability challenges?

You'd have to be mentally challenged to put up with this fraud

 

[nextwife]

You'd have to be mentally challenged to put up with this fraud

Gee! What is this? "I'm disabled, so fraud is OK?"

 

[nextwife]

The post is gone.
____________________________________________________________________________
cestlouise cestlouise is offline
Junior Member

Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7
Post times change and so must old laws!
BelizeBreeze knows all about the civil right movement for people of color
or
the Jews know how it feels to be passed judgement on by an insane man named Hitler!
and the good ole boys - "the klan" still exist.
and that is a nightmare of a thought.

The disabled of which I am only one, feel our civil rights trampled for there are courts that a person with a wheel chair like me can not get into, and when I feel good enough to walk it is usually with a different gait, if the laws of civil right marchers weren't
fought noone would have known the name of Rosa Parks,
and nothing in the world would change.
we only grow with pain and suffering -and good things are changed with the hearts and
minds of good people.

the law of ethics, has a place in this thread - and so do the rights of people to be respected...
You do not know the details of my life and I do not know anyone elses, but I do care.

I try to abide by the laws, but I am a citizen of the USA, and I am a voice of " the disability
educated", and having a disease that I will die from - will not effect many, but I have gone
and fought the good fight in DC.
and to me - integrity is all that is left when I go to sleep at night.
__________________
thank you,
sincerely,
c'est louise


We are all full of weakness and errors; let us mutually pardon each other our follies - it is the first law of nature.
Voltaire
Last edited by cestlouise : Today at 09:31 PM.
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
cestlouise
__________________________________________________________________________

She talked about inaccessable courtrooms? I'm in several county courthouses on a regular basis, and they are all fully wheelchair accessable.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

people who are committing fraud usually do try to hide their tracks.

 

[ms.wildviolets]

The Full Faith and Credit Clause - defendant wins

U.S. Supreme Court
SUTTON v. LEIB, 342 U.S. 402 (1952)
342 U.S. 402
SUTTON v. LEIB.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT.
No. 143.
Submitted December 3, 1951.
Decided March 3, 1952.


Asserting diversity jurisdiction, petitioner brought suit in a federal district court in Illinois to recover alimony under an Illinois divorce decree which awarded her alimony until remarriage. Subsequent to the Illinois divorce, petitioner remarried in Nevada, but the marriage was later annulled in New York on the ground that the man she married in Nevada was already married in New York and his Nevada divorce from his first wife was invalid. Held:

1. The liability of the defendant in this case is governed by the state law of Illinois, although the decision of federal constitutional issues involved rests finally on this Court. P. 406.
2. Upon the facts of this case, the New York annulment of the Nevada marriage must be accorded full faith and credit in Illinois. Pp. 406-409.
(a) The Nevada decree divorcing petitioner's second husband from his first wife, who was not personally served in Nevada and entered no appearance there, was subject to attack and nullification in New York for lack of jurisdiction over the parties in a contested action. Pp. 408-409.
3. The question of the effect of the Nevada marriage and the New York annulment on the obligation of the defendant in the alimony suit must be determined under Illinois law. Pp. 409-412.
(a) As a matter of constitutional law, Illinois is free to decide for itself the effect of New York's declaration of annulment on the obligations of petitioner's first husband, a stranger to the New York decree. P. 410.
(b) The jurisdiction of the federal court in this case rests on diversity of citizenship; the case does not present any non-federal issue suitable for separation and determination in the state courts; and the remaining questions of state law should be decided by the federal courts. P. 410.
4. The Court of Appeals' ruling that, in the circumstances of this case, there was no compromise of a disputed claim, is accepted here. P. 411.
188 F.2d 766, reversed.
Page 342 U.S. 402, 403
In a diversity suit to recover unpaid installments of alimony, the District Court rendered summary judgment for the defendant. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 188 F.2d 766. This Court granted certiorari. 342 U.S. 846. Reversed and remanded, p. 412.
John Alan Appleman and Edward D. Bolton submitted on brief for petitioner.
A. M. Fitzgerald submitted on brief for respondent.
MR. JUSTICE REED delivered the opinion of the Court.
By reason of a divorce in an Illinois state court, with a judgment for monthly installments of alimony until remarriage, petitioner asserts that her divorced husband, the respondent Leib, is liable for unpaid installments of alimony. Asserting diversity jurisdiction, petitioner, a divorcee, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. Claim for recovery is made, notwithstanding a later marriage by petitioner to another in Nevada, subsequently annulled in New York, for the period from the Nevada remarriage to her third presumably valid marriage in New York to a third man. To respondent's plea that the Illinois alimony obligation was finally ended by the Nevada remarriage of petitioner, Mrs. Sutton relied upon the New York annulment decree as determining that her Nevada marriage was void. She contends that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Federal Constitution requires that Illinois hold her Nevada marriage void ab initio by virtue of the New York annulment;[ Footnote 1] that as the annulment decree obliterates the existence of her Nevada marriage respondent is liable for unpaid alimony until her New York marriage to Sutton.
Page 342 U.S. 402, 404
The trial court rendered summary judgment for respondent and the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed. 188 F.2d 766. The affirmance was bottomed on the conclusion that, as the Nevada marriage of petitioner was valid in Nevada, it terminated the liability for alimony under the Illinois judgment of divorce. The court thus gave full faith and credit to the Nevada marriage rather than the New York annulment.[ Footnote 2] Because
Page 342 U.S. 402, 405
disposition of this case required treatment of an important question of federal law, review was granted on a writ of certiorari. 342 U.S. 846.
Facts. Petitioner, Verna Sutton, divorced respondent, Leib, in Illinois in 1939, and under the terms of the decree of divorce was awarded $125 "on or before the first day of each calendar month . . . for so long as the plaintiff shall remain unmarried, or for so long as this decree remains in full force and effect." On July 3, 1944, in Reno, Nevada, petitioner married Walter Henzel who had that day obtained a Nevada divorce from Dorothy Henzel, a resident of New York who had not been served in Nevada and who made no appearance there. One month later, August 3, 1944, Dorothy Henzel brought a separate maintenance proceeding in the courts of New York. Walter Henzel defended this suit. The proceeding resulted in a decree in Dorothy Henzel's favor, declaring Walter Henzel's Nevada divorce from her "null and void." With the service of Dorothy's process on Walter, petitioner ceased living with him, and in January 1945 filed suit in New York for annulment of her marriage to him. In
Page 342 U.S. 402, 406
this proceeding Walter Henzel also appeared. On June 6, 1947, the New York court entered an interlocutory decree after trial which became final three months thereafter. This judgment declared that petitioner's marriage to Henzel was "null and void" for the reason that he "had another wife living at the time of said marriage."
There was no appeal in Nevada from the Nevada divorce of the Henzels. No further action was taken in Nevada concerning the marriage of Henzel and petitioner, and no appeal taken in New York from the judgment holding the Henzels' Nevada divorce null and void or from the judgment annulling the Nevada marriage of Henzel and petitioner. The jurisdiction of the New York courts to enter the judgments is unquestioned.
Analysis of Issues. Collection of alimony is sought against respondent who was not a party to any of the judicial proceedings in Nevada or New York and appears in none of the records from either state. Illinois law as to respondent's liability governs the federal court's decision of this case.[ Footnote 3] But the responsibility for the decision of federal constitutional issues involved rests finally on this Court.[ Footnote 4] This controversy presents, fundamentally, a problem of Illinois law, to wit, the Illinois rule as to the effect of a subsequently annulled second marriage on the alimony provisions of an Illinois divorce awarding support until remarriage.

As the Full Faith and Credit Clause requires Illinois to recognize the validity of records and judicial proceedings of sister states, the conclusion will not vary because the post-divorce recorded events underlying this litigation took place in other states than Illinois. This is not an alleged conflict of decisions between states such as existed

 

[seniorjudge]

What is the name of your state? Post was from MISSOURI

I don't know why the question and answers were deleted, but I did more research on the post of the woman who was divorced in 2001 with a spousal maintenance (modifiable) from Missouri, remarried in 2003 in kansas and subsequently had that marriage anulled.

The question was, can her ex (from the first marriage and against whome the current court ordered support was due) not only stop paying support, but can he do so without further court action.

And the unqualified answer is YES, according to Missouri statutes.

IN Glass v. Glass, 546 S.W.2d 738 IMo. App. W.D. 1977), The Missouri Court of Applease, Western District, noted for the first time the issue of whether or not a subsequent marriage of a spouse, later annulled, revived the obligation of the first spouse to pay maintenance under the original decree. The court therein specifically stated that the 'annulled marriage' constituted a remarriage wihin the meaning of RSMo 452.075 1986, so as to relieve the former spouse of any further obligations.

452.370.2 RSMo Supp. 1988.
"We conclude, therefore, that remarriage within Sec. 452.075 refers to the ceremony of marriage and not to the status or relationship - valid, voidable or void - which actually results."

Glass was followed in Desloge v. Desloge, 617 S.W.2d 486, 488 (Mo.App. E.D. 1981). Therein the court held that the ex-husband's maintenance payments to the ex-wife automatically terminated on her remarriage as 452.370.2 dictates. The court also refused to allow either an implied agreements or an exclusionary reference to justify continued maintenance payments in direct contravention of said statutory section.

Furthermore, the wife owes a DUTY to the court to inform said court of the remarriage and failure to do so shifted the burden upon the wife to provide statutory support for the court to continue an order expressly terminated by statute.

In this case, as I suggested, the maintenance order ended immediately upon the remarriage of the wife without further court action and in failing in her duty to the court, the wife can and should be held accountable for the fraud perpetrated both upon the ex-spouse and the court.

...The Missouri Court of Applease....

Freudian slip?