Marriage of Williams, In re

Decision Date01 March 1984
Docket NumberNo. 83-183,83-183
PartiesIn re the MARRIAGE OF Rose WILLIAMS, Petitioner and Respondent, and Dennis Williams, Respondent and Appellant.
CourtMontana Supreme Court

Datsopoulos, MacDonald & Lind, Missoula, Milton Datsopoulos, argued and David Cotner, argued, Missoula, for respondent and appellant.

Terry Wallace, argued, Missoula, for petitioner and respondent.

SHEEHY, Justice.

Dennis Williams appeals from an order of the District Court, Fourth Judicial District, Missoula County, reinstating his obligation to pay maintenance to his previous wife, Rose Williams. We reverse the decision of the District Court and remand the cause to the District Court for further proceedings.

A final decree dissolving the marriage between Rose Williams and Dennis Williams was entered on April 21, 1980. The decree incorporated an agreement by which the parties attempted to make a complete and final settlement of their property and adjust all of their marital obligations. It provides in part that Dennis Williams make the house payments, including taxes and insurance, on the family home until the family home was paid for or sold, or until Rose Williams remarried. The agreement further provided that if Rose Williams remarried and chose to continue living in the family home Dennis Williams would no longer be required to make the house payments.

On July 10, 1982, Rose Williams remarried. She and her new husband decided to live in the family home and, pursuant to the agreement, Dennis Williams stopped making the house payments.

Two months later, on September 1, 1982, Rose Williams filed a petition to invalidate her recent marriage on the grounds that she lacked the capacity to consent to the marriage and that any consent to the marriage was induced by fraud. The petition was granted and a retroactive decree of invalidity was entered.

On December 8, 1982, Rose Williams filed a petition asking the District Court to enforce the portion of the dissolution decree requiring Dennis Williams to make the house payments. After considering the briefs of counsel, the District Court issued an order in which the court determined that "[p]etitioner's annulment of her second marriage has served to revive respondent's obligation for maintenance." It is from this determination that Dennis Williams appeals. Contrary to the District Court's determination, Dennis Williams contends that his obligation to pay maintenance in the form of house payments was terminated by Rose Williams' remarriage and that this obligation was not automatically revived by the retroactive decree of invalidity.

Historically in Montana the annulment of a marriage rendered that marriage void ab initio, void as of the date of the marriage. State ex rel. Wooten v. District Court (1920), 57 Mont. 517, 189 P. 233; In re Takahashi's Estate (1942), 113 Mont. 490, 129 P.2d 217. In 1975, however, the Montana legislature adopted the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act which provided that a decree of invalidity or an annulment could be declared nonretroactive as well as retroactive in effect. Section 40-1-402(5), MCA, provides that the court shall declare the marriage invalid as of the date of the marriage "[u]nless the court finds, after a consideration of all relevant circumstances, including the effect of a retroactive decree on third parties, that the interests of justice would be served by making the decree nonretroactive." If a nonretroactive decree of invalidity is issued, the statute further provides that "[t]he provisions of chapter 4 [section 40-4-101 to 40-4-225, inc., MCA] relating to property rights of the spouses, maintenance, support, and custody of children on dissolution of marriage are applicable ..."

These provisions do not alter the status of the marriage; in the eyes of the law the marriage is deemed as having never occurred, regardless of whether the decree of invalidity is declared retroactive or nonretroactive. These provisions do, however, have an effect on the rights of the parties to the recent marriage and other third persons, depending on whether the decree of invalidity is declared nonretroactive or retroactive. For example, if a decree of invalidity is declared to be nonretroactive, the spouse granted the decree may petition the District Court for a division of the marital property, maintenance, or child support. Therefore, before making a decision as to the retroactivity or nonretroactivity of a decree, the District Court must consider all of the relevant circumstances including the effect of a retroactive decree on third parties and balance the equities involved.

Unfortunately, there is no evidence in this record that the District Court considered any possible effect of a retroactive decree on third parties before granting the decree and declaring it to be retroactive.

In some jurisdictions it is well-settled that the annulment of a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Marriage of Cargill and Rollins, In re, 91SC738
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • January 11, 1993
    ... ...         The primary function of a court in interpreting and construing statutes is to ascertain and to give effect to the intent of the General Assembly, choosing a construction that serves the purpose of the legislative scheme. Farmers Group v. Williams, 805 P.2d 419, 422 (Colo.1991) (quoting Colorado Dep't of Social Serv.'s v. Board of Comm'rs, 697 P.2d 1, 18 (Colo.1985)). In 1971, Colorado adopted the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act, sections 14-2-101 to -113 and 14-10-101 to -133, 6B C.R.S. (1987 and 1992 Supp.), substantially based on the ... ...
  • Joye v. Yon, 3335.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • April 23, 2001
    ... ...         On March 23, 1999, Joye participated in a marriage ceremony with Donald Vance. Yon stopped paying alimony March 25, 1999. However, Joye soon learned that Vance had never obtained a divorce from his ... See Ferguson v. Ferguson, 564 P.2d 1380, 1383 (Utah 1977); In re Marriage of Williams, 208 Mont. 252, 677 P.2d 585, 587 (1984); Peters, 214 N.W.2d at 157. These jurisdictions have held that although participation in the marriage ... ...
  • Fredo v. Fredo
    • United States
    • Connecticut Superior Court
    • December 12, 2005
    ... ...    The issue set forth in the present case is whether an order for the payment of periodic alimony contained in a decree of dissolution of marriage (entered pursuant to an agreement of the parties) which is expressly terminable upon, inter alia, the remarriage of the alimony recipient, is ... Peters, 214 N.W.2d 151 (Ia.1974) (four to three majority); In re Marriage of Williams, 208 Mont. 252, 677 P.2d 585 (1984); Joye v. Yon, 355 S.C. 452, 586 S.E.2d 131 (2003) (three to two majority); Ferguson v. Ferguson, 564 P.2d 1380 ... ...
  • In re the Marriage of Holly H. Wolf
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • August 11, 2011
    ... ... [361 Mont. 331] In re Marriage of Williams, 208 Mont. 252, 255, 677 P.2d 585, 586 (1984). But 401402(5), MCA, does have an effect on the rights of the parties to the recent marriage and other third persons, depending on whether the decree of invalidity is declared nonretroactive or retroactive. Marriage of Williams, 208 Mont. at 255, 677 ... ...
  • 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