MacDougall v. Levick
294 Va. 283
| Va. | 2017Background
- Levick and MacDougall held a home wedding on Dec. 21, 2002; they did not have a marriage license then.
- Following the ceremony they went to obtain a marriage license on Jan. 6, 2003; Levick mailed the marriage register to the rabbi, who received it and executed the marriage certificate on Jan. 21, 2003 (the certificate lists Jan. 21 as the marriage date).
- In 2009 the couple executed a marital agreement allocating spousal support and property rights; they later filed for divorce in 2011.
- Mid-divorce, Levick asserted for the first time that the marriage was void ab initio because the license was issued after the ceremony, invoking Code § 20-13 and related statutes.
- The circuit court held the marriage void ab initio; the Court of Appeals held the marriage voidable; the Supreme Court of Virginia reversed both, holding the marriage valid under the facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Levick) | Defendant's Argument (MacDougall) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Code § 20-13 requires the license to precede solemnization such that a ceremony-before-license sequence makes the marriage void ab initio | License must precede solemnization; failure renders marriage a nullity | Statute requires license and solemnization but does not prescribe sequencing; parties and officiant may agree on manner/timing | Court: statute does not mandate that sequencing; marriage valid where parties and officiant agreed a delayed completion of solemnization and license was later presented and certified |
| Whether the ceremony-before-license sequence (as here) makes the marriage voidable rather than void ab initio | N/A (primary claim was void ab initio) | Even if technical defect, marriage should not be treated as voidable where parties manifested intent and officiant executed certificate | Court: marriage was not voidable on these facts; presumption of validity controls; marriage valid |
| Whether statutory or clerical violations by officiant (e.g., delayed filing, performing without license) invalidate the marriage | Violations of Code §§ (20-28, 32.1-267) should void the marriage | Officiant’s statutory violations may carry penalties but do not automatically defeat the marriage where license and solemnization requirements are otherwise satisfied | Court: officiant’s statutory breach does not automatically void marriage; public policy presumes validity absent clear statutory command |
| Whether equitable doctrines or remedial statutes could or should save or defeat enforcement of the marital agreement entered while parties believed they were married | If marriage void, Levick may repudiate marital agreement | Marriage is valid; marital agreement enforceable and court may distribute assets accordingly | Court: marriage valid; remand for further proceedings consistent with enforcing marital agreement as appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Commonwealth, 293 Va. 29 (Va. 2017) (discussed void-ab-initio concept)
- Eldred v. Eldred, 97 Va. 606 (Va. 1899) (strong presumption of marriage validity)
- Needam v. Needam, 183 Va. 681 (Va. 1945) (public policy favors upholding marriages)
- Offield v. Davis, 100 Va. 250 (Va. 1902) (statutory compliance historically required for marriage validity)
- Toler v. Oakwood Smokeless Coal Corp., 173 Va. 425 (Va. 1937) (void ab initio marriages confer no legal rights)
- Cramer v. Commonwealth, 214 Va. 561 (Va. 1975) (state has no interest in ceremonial details of solemnization)