ILNews

Court rules on out-of-state marriages

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Even if a marriage is questionable in another state, Indiana will recognize that marriage if it complies with Hoosier law.

An Indiana Supreme Court ruling late Tuesday gave that answer in Emma McPeek, et al. v. Charles McCardle, No. 58S01-0708-CV-305, which hails from Ohio Circuit Court and involves a technical issue regarding a couple not having an official out-of-state marriage license when they wed in Ohio, even though they'd had one from Indiana.

The plaintiff-appellants in this case sued following their mother's death in 2004 and contended that a marriage between Edwina VanTyle and Charles McCardle in 1994 was void and that the children were proper owners of one-half the farm that'd been in the family for three generations. VanTyle and McCardle were both Indiana residents and obtained a marriage license in Ohio County, and then went to Ohio for the marriage ceremony. The reverend was authorized to solemnize marriages in that state and completed a marriage certificate from Indiana, but not one for that state. The children alleged the marriage was void since not having a marriage license there violated Ohio law.

The Indiana trial judge granted a motion to dismiss for the husband on grounds that the daughter, Emma McPeek, didn't have standing; the judge concluded the marriage was voidable - not void - by Indiana law. The Court of Appeals affirmed last year and the justices have now done the same, but on a different legal theory.

Relying on caselaw that stretches back more than a half-century, the Supreme Court pointed out that unless strong public policy exceptions require otherwise, the law of a place where a marriage occurs generally determines the validity of a marriage. It found nothing indicating that Ohio marriages without a license violate the state law, though it noted the marriage could be seen as "defective."

Indiana justices were reluctant to rule solely because of what Ohio law says, pointing out that the high court there hasn't addressed this issue in 50 years and its intermediate appellate court last touched on this more than 30 years ago.

Instead, the court relied on Indiana law as the two lived here before and after the marriage ceremony and that both likely anticipated the marriage would be valid.

"We conclude that where, as here, a couple has complied with Indiana's statutory requirements regarding marriage licenses, certificates, and solemnization, such that the marriage would have been valid if solemnized in this state, we will recognize the marriage as valid even if the marriage ceremony took place in another state and didn't comply with that state's law or public policy," Justice Robert Rucker wrote.

Justices were quick to point out that state law already voids a marriage if Indiana residents go to another state to solemnize a marriage with the intent to evade either state's law. The opinion also encourages couples to check the legal requirements when exploring out-of-state marriages, and that those individuals should re-solemnize their marriage in Indiana to avoid future validity questions.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT