Edmunds v. Edwards

• Decision Date: 08 January 1980
• Docket Number: No. 42535,42535
• Citation: 287 N.W.2d 420,205 Neb. 255
• Parties: Renne EDMUNDS, Guardian of the Estate of Harold Edwards, Incompetent, Appellant, v. Inez EDWARDS, Appellee.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

Page 420

287 N.W.2d 420

205 Neb. 255

Renne EDMUNDS, Guardian of the Estate of Harold Edwards, Incompetent, Appellant, v. Inez EDWARDS, Appellee.

No. 42535.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

Jan. 8, 1980.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Marriage: Statutes. Although by statute marriage is considered a civil contract, to which the consent of the parties capable of contracting is essential, it is not a contract resembling in any but the slightest degree any other contract with which the courts have to deal, except as to the element of consent. What persons establish by entering into matrimony is not only a contractual relation, but also a social status. The interest of the state must always be taken into account.

2. Marriage: Mental Health. Marriages are void when either party, at the time of the marriage, is insane or mentally incompetent to enter into the marriage relation.

3. Marriage: Mental Health. A marriage contract will not be declared void for mental incapacity to enter into it unless there existed at the time of the marriage such a want of understanding as to render the party incapable of assenting thereto.

4. Marriage: Mental Health. Mere weakness of mind is not sufficient to void a contract of marriage unless there be such a mental defect as to prevent the party from comprehending the nature of the contract and from giving his free, intelligent consent to it.

5. Marriage: Mental Health. Absolute inability to contract, insanity, or idiocy will void a marriage, but mere weakness of mind will not unless it produces a derangement sufficient to avoid all contracts by destroying the power to consent.

6. Marriage: Mental Health. A marriage is valid if a party has sufficient capacity to understand the nature of the contract and the obligations and responsibilities it creates.

7. Marriage: Proof. A marriage is presumed valid, and the burden of proof is upon the party seeking annulment.

8. Marriage: Evidence. It is the general rule that the existence of a valid marriage is a question of fact.

9. Marriage: Divorce: Evidence: Appeal and Error. The rule is well established that where evidence on material questions of fact is in irreconcilable conflict, the Supreme Court, in determining the weight of the evidence, will consider the fact that the trial court observed the witnesses and their manner of testifying, and therefore must have accepted one version of the facts rather than the opposite. Thus rule has been applied both in annulment actions and in divorce actions.

Renne Edmunds of Knowles & Edmunds, Omaha, for appellant.

Vard R. Johnson and William L. Monahan, Omaha, for appellee.

Heard before KRIVOSHA, C. J., and BOSLAUGH, McCOWN, CLINTON, BRODKEY, WHITE and HASTINGS, JJ.

BRODKEY, Justice.

This case involves an action brought in the District Court for Douglas County on May 23, 1977, by Renne Edmunds, guardian of the estate of Harold Edwards (hereinafter referred to as Harold), against Inez Edwards (nee Ryan, hereinafter referred to as Inez), to annul the marriage of his ward Harold to Inez, which occurred on May 10, 1975. In his petition, the guardian alleged that the marriage was void for the reason that Harold did not have the mental capacity to enter into a marriage contract on that date, which allegation was specifically denied by Inez. In its order entered on November 27, 1978, following trial of the matter, the District Court found that Harold was mentally retarded, as that phrase is commonly used in medical science, but not to a degree which, under the law of the State of Nebraska, is of such a nature as to render him mentally incompetent to enter into the marriage relation, and that at the time of the marriage between Harold and Inez, Harold had sufficient capacity to understand the nature of the marriage contract and the duties and responsibilities incident to it, so as to be able to enter into a valid and binding marriage contract. The court therefore found that the marriage of Harold and Inez, which occurred on May 10, 1975, was, in fact and in law, a valid marriage and continues to exist as a valid marriage under the laws of the State of Nebraska, and is in full force and effect. The guardian has appealed to this court from that order. We affirm.

Harold was born on August 7, 1918, and was institutionalized at the Beatrice State Home as mentally retarded on September 25, 1939. He was a resident at the Beatrice State Home for a period of approximately 30 years. It was during this period that he first met Inez, who was also a patient of the home, and Bill Lancaster, who lived with Harold in Omaha after their release from the Beatrice State Home, and who has continued to reside with Harold and Inez since their marriage. Harold was placed in Omaha on November 14, 1969, and started a new life under the auspices of the Eastern Nebraska Community Office of Retardation (ENCOR), which was established in 1968 to provide alternatives for institutionalization of retarded persons at the Beatrice State Home and to assist in the normalization of the retarded in local communities. After coming to Omaha, Harold obtained employment as a food service worker in the Douglas County Hospital on February 16, 1970, and lived in a staffed ENCOR apartment from that time until shortly before his marriage in 1975. As will later be made apparent, he has functioned satisfactorily in that employment, and has received promotions and salary increases since commencing on that job. While under the auspices of ENCOR, Harold and Inez developed a romantic interest in each other and eventually decided to get married. The date of the marriage was postponed in order to afford the couple the opportunity to have premarital sex counseling and marriage counseling from the pastor of their church in Omaha. They were married by Reverend Verle Holsteen, pastor of the First Baptist Church in Omaha, Nebraska, and their friends, staff members of ENCOR, and out-of-state relatives attended the wedding in that church. The guardian did not bring this action to annul the marriage for a period of approximately 2 years after the date of the marriage ceremony.

Before discussing the nature of the marriage contract in Nebraska, and the legal aspects of annulling marriages on the ground of lack of mental capacity, it will be helpful to first review some of the pertinent testimony presented by the witnesses who testified at the trial. There is no question but that Harold was mentally retarded at the date of his marriage. The question in this case is the degree of his mental retardation, and whether it was such as to prevent him from entering into a valid marriage contract.

According to testimony in the record, mental retardation refers basically to delayed intellectual function and developmental delays usually associated from the time early in life and persisting throughout life. There are various degrees of mental retardation according to the official diagnostic system or nomenclature of the American Medical Association. Those degrees are mild, moderate, severe, and profound. Formerly, there was older nomenclature that defined the degrees of mental retardation as idiot, imbecile, and moron. The older classification of idiot is now encompassed under the two new groupings of "profound" and "severe;" the older classification of "imbecile" is now encompassed within the range of moderate mental retardation; and the older term "moron" is today classified as mild mental retardation. The expert medical witnesses for both parties agree that Harold falls within the classification of mild mental retardation.

The guardian first called his medical expert, Dr. Robert Mitchell, a psychologist connected with Creighton University in Omaha. Dr. Mitchell expressed the opinion that he did not believe Harold was competent to enter into a valid marriage, but admitted on cross-examination that being mildly mentally retarded did not automatically preclude a person from marriage. He also testified that he had asked Harold during his examinations and consultations what marriage meant, to which Harold responded "For life," and also "You stay married forever." Harold told Dr. Mitchell during the interview that he wanted to get married. Dr. Mitchell also stated: "(I) found no evidence from him or the way he behaved in my interview that he was attempting to get out of the marriage, he seemed very happy with the marriage * * * ." Dr. Mitchell also testified: "It is much better, I think, to refer to Mr. Edwards as a person who is fifty-nine years of age who is not as bright as most people. But he has had fifty-nine years of experience, and he is an adult, and physiologically he is matured, as well."

The medical expert witness called by the defendant was Dr. Frank J. Menolascino, a psychiatrist specializing in the field of mental retardation, and author of numerous books and articles upon the subject. He was well acquainted with Harold, having first met him in 1959 when he was doing work at the Beatrice State Home, and had seen Harold many times since that time. He had examined Harold in December 1977, and again in July 1978, during the week Dr. Menolascino testified. He testified that Harold was not functioning below the mildly retarded range and that the tests reflected that a great deal of Harold's difficulty appeared to be primarily a lack of training. Harold told him he was marrying a lady he had known at the Beatrice State Home and that he had had premarital counseling from the minister of his church and also sexual counseling. Dr. Menolascino also testified that he had asked Harold why he wanted to get married, and Harold replied, "I don't want to be lonely." Harold had been married approximately 21/2 years before Dr. Menolascino saw him in December of 1977, and his mental status was "remarkably similar to the one I had seen in the past in the '60s." Dr. Menolascino was asked: "Doctor, do you believe that you have an opinion as to whether Mr. Edwards was capable of...