Margulies v. Margulies

• Decision Date: 16 December 1931
• Parties: MARGULIES v. MARGULIES.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

157 A. 676

MARGULIES

v. MARGULIES.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

Dec. 16, 1931.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. One who induces a defendant to obtain a foreign divorce and pays the expenses thereof, and afterwards marries her, is precluded from attacking the validity of the divorce.

2. One who alleges defendant's divorce was obtained by fraud, but who admits he participated in the fraud, will not in a court of equity be allowed to take advantage of the wrongdoing to which he was a party.

3. When parties enter into a matrimonial contract which, but for the existence of an unknown impediment, woidd have been valid, and continue in such relationship in good faith after the removal of the impediment, a valid common-law marriage is established.

4. Evidence examined. Held petitioner is entitled to a reasonable allowance for alimony pendente lite and counsel fee.

Suit by Evelyn Margulies against Joseph Margulies. On plaintiff's application for alimony pendente lite.

Decision in accordance with opinion.

Benjamin Shanefield, of Vineland, for petitioner.

Raymond H. Berry, of Newark, for defendant.

CHURCH, Vice Chancellor.

This is an application for alimony pendente lite. The defendant resists the application primarily because he says that petitioner obtained a divorce from her first husband by fraud in Virginia. It appears that defendant knew of petitioner's residence in Virginia, as appears by a letter he sent her in December, 1923, to Norfolk, in that state. He knew she was seeking a divorce there, because he paid the expenses of the suit. He then went through a ceremonial marriage with her in New Jersey and lived with her as man and wife for seven years. Corpus Juris vol. 19, page 378, states that "A stranger to the decree can only impeach it collaterally for fraud when it injuriously affects him." And, further, "* * * one who subsequently marries one of the divorced parties has no such interest as will enable him to attack the decree." Kaufman v. Kaufman, 177 App. Div. 162, 163 N. Y. S. 566, holds that one who induces defendant to obtain the foreign divorce and finances her in so doing is precluded from obtaining a judicial annulment of the marriage, predicated on the invalidity of the divorce. To the same effect is Cesareo v. Cesareo, 134 Misc. Rep. 88, 234 N. Y. S. 44. There is a still broader ground for refusing to allow defendant to attack the Virginia decree. He alleges it was obtained by fraud, but admits he knew all about it, and paid the expenses of it. If there were fraud, which does not conclusively appear, he participated in it, and this court will not allow him to take advantage of his own wrong.

The defendant also contends that the marriage is void because he married petitioner within four months after the Virginia decree, whereas the decree forbade her marriage until after six months. This impediment was unknown to defendant until the present suit was begun. In the first place, the Virginia decree is final and binding unless set aside, which has not been done. In the second place, I am convinced that the defendant, himself, was responsible for the early marriage, and cannot now object to it. Thirdly, the general principle of law applicable here is stated in Corpus Juris vol. 38, at page 1320, as follows: "Where parties to an agreement and relationship which, but for...