subject: Massachusetts Final Divorce Decree Estopped Denying Marriage Lawyers Attorneys [print this page] NORMAN SUNESON vNORMAN SUNESON v. YVONNE SUNESON &State Board of Retirement.
Appeals Court of Massachusetts
June 18, 1987, Decided
In 1971, Yvonne's then husband, Louis Bilodeau, told her he was going to obtain a Mexican divorce. Yvonne consented and signed several forms. Shortly thereafter, she received through the mail a copy of a three-page document entitled "Final Divorce Decree." Prior to Paul's marriage to Yvonne in 1977, Paul examined the Mexican divorce papers. Both Paul and Yvonne entered into their marriage believing themselves free to marry. They separated in 1980, and in 1982 Paul designated Norman plaintiff as his beneficiary under G. L. c. 32, 11. After Paul's death in 1983, an investigation revealed that the Mexican court that purportedly had issued the divorce decree had no record of any action between Yvonne and Louis Bilodeau and had no record of any divorce decree. It thus appears that an attorney for Bilodeau sent the parties a fraudulent and invalid Mexican decree. Plaintiff, brother-in-law, commenced an action against defendant widow seeking a declaration that he, as the designated beneficiary, was entitled to the retirement benefits of his deceased brother on the ground that the widow's marriage to his brother was invalid. Superior court, Massachusetts, rendered in favor of the widow on the basis that he was estopped from denying the marriage. The plaintiff appealed.
Whether the trial court erred in rendering in favor of the widow, that the plaintiff was estopped from denying the marriage?
Discussion:
Despite the probable invalidity of Yvonne's divorce, the trial judge, relying on Poor v. Poor, 381 Mass. 392 (1980), treated the case as one where, balancing the equities, Paul would now be estopped from challenging the divorce. Norman urges that Poor is inapplicable because here there is no foreign judgment but only a fake decree. This Court, however, agree with the trial judge, who said: "As long as the parties' belief is sincere, it makes little difference for purposes of estoppel, whether the divorce was issued by a Mexican court that lacked jurisdiction, or whether it was issued by an attorney doing a brisk business in fraudulent Mexican divorces. This Court also agrees with the judge that Norman, a stranger to the marriage, has standing only as Paul's designee and, as such, is to be estopped "just as Paul would have been estopped."
The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the widow.
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm's unofficial views of the Justices' opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Massachusetts Final Divorce Decree Estopped Denying Marriage Lawyers Attorneys
