Maple v. Maple, 14888

• Decision Date: 27 June 1977
• Docket Number: No. 14888,14888
• Citation: Maple v. Maple, 566 P.2d 1229 (Utah 1977)
• Parties: Pannee Srisung MAPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. James C. MAPLE, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: Utah Supreme Court

Page 1229

566 P.2d 1229

Pannee Srisung MAPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. James C. MAPLE, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 14888.

Supreme Court of Utah.

June 27, 1977.

George B. Handy, Ogden, for plaintiff and respondent.

Donald C. Hughes, Jr., Ogden, for defendant and appellant.

CROCKETT, Justice:

Defendant, James C. Maple, appeals from findings and decree which declared the marriage between him and plaintiff, Pannee Srisung Maple, to be null and void, granted to the plaintiff a settlement of $1200, equivalent to the expenses necessary for the return to Thailand of herself and of her young son by her prior marriage. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant contest the ruling thus terminating the marriage.

The only issue involved here is defendant's contention that since the marriage was annulled he should have no further obligation to the plaintiff; and that thus the award of $1200 settlement was in error and should be vacated.

Plaintiff is a native citizen of Thailand. She met defendant when he was serving in the U.S. Air Force there; and the parties were married at Korat, Thailand on March 27, 1973. Plaintiff had been previously married to a Thai national, and although there seems to be some confusion about the matter, not material to the issue here involved, it appears from the copy of her decree of divorce from her first husband, that it was dated May 22, 1973, and thus after her marriage to this defendant. The parties came to the United States in July of 1974. They have lived at several air force bases, the last one of which was Hill Air Force Base in Weber County, Utah.

Defendant's counsel represents that he has gone to a great deal of trouble to determine and show that under the law of Thailand a marriage with one already married is a nullity. Rule 9, Utah Rules of Evidence provides that this can be done by obtaining a copy of the law and presenting it to the court. ¹ But we do not see any difficulty here from failing to do so. The rule is that unless the law of a foreign jurisdiction is proved to be otherwise, it will be presumed to be the same as the law of the forum state. ² Sec. 30-1-2(2), U.C.A.1953, prohibits a marriage where either of the parties has a husband or wife still living; and Sec. 30-1-17.1, U.C.A.1953, allows a marriage to be annulled on this ground, as the trial court correctly ruled herein.

In arguing that the trial court committed error in making the award of $1200 when the marriage was annulled, the defendant and the authorities he cites fail to take cognizance of the change in our law relating to annulments effected by the enactment of Sec. 3(a), Chapter 65, S.L.U.1971 (in our Code as Sec. 30-1-17.2 U.C.A.1953), which provides:

Actions to determine the validity of marriage . . . If the parties have accumulated any property or acquired any obligations subsequent to the marriage, or there is a genuine need arising from economic change of circumstances due to the marriage, . . . the court may make temporary and final orders, and subsequently modify the orders, relating to the parties, their property and obligations, . . . and...