Marriage of Sumners, In re, No. 12568

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Writing for the CourtHOGAN; MAUS, P.J., and PREWITT
Citation645 S.W.2d 205
Decision Date03 January 1983
Docket NumberNo. 12568
PartiesIn re Marriage of Sharon SUMNERS and Jerry L. Sumners. Sharon SUMNERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jerry L. SUMNERS, Defendant-Respondent.

Page 205

645 S.W.2d 205
In re Marriage of Sharon SUMNERS and Jerry L. Sumners.
Sharon SUMNERS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Jerry L. SUMNERS, Defendant-Respondent.
No. 12568.
Missouri Court of Appeals,
Southern District,
Division Two.
Jan. 3, 1983.
Motion for Rehearing or Transfer Denied
Jan. 24, 1983.
Application to Transfer Denied
Feb. 23, 1983.

Page 206

Meredith B. Turner, Lynn E. Heitman, Turner, Reid, Duncan & Loomer, P.C., Springfield, for plaintiff-appellant.

Donald E. Bonacker, Bonacker & Reynolds, P.C., Springfield, for defendant-respondent.

G. Michael Baker, Springfield, Guardian ad Litem.

HOGAN, Judge.

This is an action to dissolve a marriage. By amended answer filed with leave of court, defendant Jerry Lee Sumners challenged the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the action. The trial court heard and determined the matter as provided by Rule 55.27(c). It concluded the parties' marriage was void and dismissed the action. Plaintiff appeals.

The defendant has been married four times. He married Alma, his first wife, by whom he has two children, in Kansas in September 1955. Defendant and Alma were divorced on December 30, 1957, but were remarried in Oklahoma the following month. Defendant and Alma were again divorced in Kansas on September 29, 1961. At some time in 1961, defendant moved from Wichita to Omaha. He married Patricia O'Neil in Nebraska on December 12, 1961. Patricia sued the defendant for divorce in the District Court of Douglas County, at Omaha, in 1963. On October 18, 1963, that court entered a default decree awarding Patricia an "absolute divorce." The decree concludes: "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT NEITHER PARTY TO THIS DIVORCE MAY REMARRY WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE DATE OF THIS DECREE." Defendant testified he received a copy of this decree shortly after it was entered. The record is entirely silent concerning Patricia after the divorce; it may be inferred from the Nebraska decree that she was present when that decree was entered on October 18, 1963.

The defendant began courting the plaintiff in July or early August 1963. The ardor of their courtship increased, and plaintiff became defendant's paramour approximately 1 month after the decree was issued. Plaintiff's knowledge of the terms of the decree was made an issue on trial. We do not regard her appreciation of its effect controlling. It is fairly inferable that she became aware of its content during the early years of the parties' marriage, but we regard the defendant's knowledge of the prohibition against remarriage as superior to hers. Nebraska law would charge defendant with knowledge of the terms of the decree. Cf. Loringer v. Kaplan, 179 Neb. 215, 137 N.W.2d 716, 718-719[4, 5] (1965).

Defendant proposed marriage to the plaintiff "[f]ormally with a diamond ring on December 14th of 1963." The parties immediately made plans to be married in Iowa, even though they were residents of Omaha and intended to remain in Nebraska. They finally decided to be married at a church 250 miles east of Omaha. The church is designated the "Little Brown Church in the Vale." Both parties testified the name of the church had romantic appeal. With deference, we think candor was better served by defendant's answer when

Page 207

he was closely cross-examined about the parties' choice of matrimonial forum. Defendant testified that he and the plaintiff had discussed a plan to be married and chose the church in Iowa because "there was a waiting period in the State of Nebraska, and when [plaintiff] come [sic] up pregnant, naturally, she was going to show, and we didn't want her friends and everyone else to know that we had to get married. So, in my own way of thinking, going into the State of Iowa, I thought we [would] legally, to a point, be married, because I knew there was a waiting period in Nebraska." A marriage ceremony was performed at the "Little Brown Church in the Vale," in Chickasaw County, Iowa, on January 31, 1964, a little more than 3 months after defendant's divorce from Patricia.

The parties lived together in Nebraska as husband and wife from the date of their marriage in 1964 until November 15, 1968. In 1968 they moved to Lawrence County, Missouri, and thereafter lived together as husband and wife, except for one period of separation, until they were finally separated on February 23, 1980. Proof of the parties' cohabitation is abundant; they are the natural parents of a son born August 18, 1964, another son born October 4, 1965, a third son born December 22, 1967, and a daughter born December 23, 1974. All these children have attended school in Missouri and have been held out as the parties' children. Since 1965, the parties have filed joint income tax returns as husband and wife; they have acquired several parcels of realty as tenants by the entirety.

The course of the litigation is, to a degree, informative. The petition for dissolution was filed in Lawrence County on April 25, 1980. Defendant filed a timely answer on May 9, 1980, admitting the existence of a lawful marriage between him and the plaintiff and averring the execution of a "separation agreement" in July 1976. Prayer of the answer was for dissolution of the marriage, distribution of the marital property "and the proceeds thereof" described in the separation agreement, as provided in the said agreement, and for distribution of the "remainder" of the marital property. Contemporaneously, the defendant filed an application for a change of judge; on June 25, 1980, another judge was assigned to hear the cause.

On September 8, 1981, plaintiff filed a reply, denying the existence of any separation agreement "which applies to the current proceeding." Plaintiff further averred that after the parties separated in July 1976, they were thereafter reconciled and lived together as husband and wife, and alternatively alleged that the agreement was "unconscionable, and was entered into by [plaintiff] under duress." On October 6, 1980, plaintiff filed a motion for temporary allowances; this motion was heard and taken under advisement on January 7, 1981. On February 6, the trial judge entered an elaborate order awarding temporary allowances to the plaintiff, and on May 8, 1981, disqualified himself. On July 15, 1981, a third judge was assigned to hear the cause. On September 16, 1981, the defendant moved to file an amended answer, alleging that when the original answer was filed in May 1980, counsel was unaware of the provisions of Nebraska law but that subsequent research had disclosed that the defendant's Nebraska divorce did not terminate his marital status for 6 months. The amended answer sets up in paragraph 7 that "[t]he parties were never married" because at the time the Iowa ceremony was celebrated, the Nebraska decree had not become final and therefore the Iowa marriage was void. The defendant was permitted to file this amended answer, and a hearing was held to determine the parties' marriage status on November 10, 1981. On November 23, 1981, the cause was dismissed.

The legal file discloses that while the cause was pending and between May 9, 1980, and November 23,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • State v. Byrd, No. 64656
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • September 11, 1984
    ...the context of civil litigation where the existence of a valid marriage is a material issue in the action. See In re Marriage of Sumners, 645 S.W.2d 205, 208 (Mo.App.1983); see also Annot., 14 A.L.R.2d 7 (1950). We are also cognizant of the general statement that the presumption is not over......
  • Marriage of Bowman, In re, No. 21904
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • July 22, 1998
    ...did not have a career but moved with Appellant to various military bases and raised their child. See In re Marriage of Sumners, 645 S.W.2d 205 "In a marriage where a spouse relies on the other spouse for monetary support, and is out of the marketplace, thereby injuring the spouse's marketab......
  • Aldrich v. Aldrich, WD 84127
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • November 2, 2021
    ...believed in good faith that the marriage was valid, establish its invalidity when it becomes advantageous. In re Marriage of Sumners , 645 S.W.2d 205, 209 (Mo. App. S.D. 1983). Yun v. Yun , 908 S.W.2d 787 (Mo. App. W.D. 1995), is instructive:Moreover, even if it were conceded that no [marri......
  • Estate of Warner, Matter of, No. 48576
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • March 12, 1985
    ...In Missouri a subsequent marriage is presumed valid. Klein v. Laudman, 29 Mo. 259, 261 (1860). See also In re Marriage of Sumners, 645 S.W.2d 205, 208 (Mo.App.1983). As the Supreme Court noted in Carr v. Carr, 232 S.W.2d 488, 489 (Mo.1950) "where a valid first marriage has been shown, ... i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • State v. Byrd, No. 64656
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • September 11, 1984
    ...the context of civil litigation where the existence of a valid marriage is a material issue in the action. See In re Marriage of Sumners, 645 S.W.2d 205, 208 (Mo.App.1983); see also Annot., 14 A.L.R.2d 7 (1950). We are also cognizant of the general statement that the presumption is not over......
  • Marriage of Bowman, In re, No. 21904
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • July 22, 1998
    ...did not have a career but moved with Appellant to various military bases and raised their child. See In re Marriage of Sumners, 645 S.W.2d 205 "In a marriage where a spouse relies on the other spouse for monetary support, and is out of the marketplace, thereby injuring the spouse's marketab......
  • Aldrich v. Aldrich, WD 84127
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • November 2, 2021
    ...believed in good faith that the marriage was valid, establish its invalidity when it becomes advantageous. In re Marriage of Sumners , 645 S.W.2d 205, 209 (Mo. App. S.D. 1983). Yun v. Yun , 908 S.W.2d 787 (Mo. App. W.D. 1995), is instructive:Moreover, even if it were conceded that no [marri......
  • Estate of Warner, Matter of, No. 48576
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • March 12, 1985
    ...In Missouri a subsequent marriage is presumed valid. Klein v. Laudman, 29 Mo. 259, 261 (1860). See also In re Marriage of Sumners, 645 S.W.2d 205, 208 (Mo.App.1983). As the Supreme Court noted in Carr v. Carr, 232 S.W.2d 488, 489 (Mo.1950) "where a valid first marriage has been shown, ... i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT