McKettrick v. McKettrick
2015 Ohio 366
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Jennifer and Cheryl, same-sex partners, lived together in Ohio from 1998–2012; they obtained a Massachusetts marriage certificate after a small ceremony in April 2006 at Cheryl's Eastham, MA house.
- Both maintained Ohio homes, employment, voter registrations, and driver’s licenses; they vacationed in Massachusetts annually but did not change domicile.
- Jennifer filed for divorce in Ohio in November 2013; Cheryl moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the 2006 Massachusetts marriage was void.
- The trial court applied Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 207, §11 (in effect in 2006) and Ohio law prohibiting same-sex marriage, concluded the 2006 marriage was void, and dismissed the complaint.
- Jennifer appealed, arguing Mass. 207-11 did not apply and/or Ohio’s same-sex marriage prohibitions were unconstitutional and thus void ab initio.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 207, §11 to the 2006 MA marriage | Jennifer: §11 inapplicable because they were Massachusetts "residents" (owned a house) and did not intend to continue to reside elsewhere | Cheryl: §11 applies because the statutory language refers to domicile; parties were domiciled in Ohio and intended to remain so | Held: §11 applied because Massachusetts law treats the terms as referring to domicile and the parties were domiciled in Ohio |
| Validity of the marriage under Ohio law (recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages) | Jennifer: Even if §11 applied, Ohio's ban was unconstitutional so it could not invalidate the MA marriage | Cheryl: Ohio law (statute and constitutional amendment) declared same-sex marriages void and not recognized | Held: Under Ohio law (R.C. 3101.01(C) and Ohio Const. Art. XV §11) same-sex marriages have no legal force in Ohio; marriage invalid for divorce jurisdiction purposes |
| Validity of the marriage under Massachusetts law | Jennifer: MA recognized the marriage if §11 did not apply | Cheryl: Under §11, MA voids marriages of domiciliary nonresidents if invalid in domiciliary state | Held: Under Massachusetts precedent §11 rendered the marriage void because parties were domiciled in Ohio and same-sex marriage was prohibited there |
| Constitutional challenge to Ohio's same-sex marriage prohibitions | Jennifer: R.C. 3101.01(C) and Art. XV §11 violate Due Process and Equal Protection; thus void ab initio | Cheryl: State provisions were valid at the time and served to invalidate the MA marriage; lower federal rulings are not binding on this court | Held: Court declined to strike Ohio provisions; relied on Sixth Circuit reasoning (DeBoer) and found no basis to retroactively nullify Ohio law; provisions stood and defeated jurisdiction for divorce |
Key Cases Cited
- Mazzolini v. Mazzolini, 168 Ohio St. 357 (Ohio 1958) (lex loci contractus generally governs marital validity except where contrary to public policy)
- DeBoer v. Snyder, 772 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 2014) (upholding Ohio same-sex marriage prohibitions under federal constitutional analysis)
- Cote-Whitacre v. Department of Public Health, 446 Mass. 350 (Mass. 2006) (interpreting Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 207 to apply based on domicile of nonresidents)
- Wendell v. AmeriTrust Co., 69 Ohio St.3d 74 (Ohio 1994) (decision invalidating a statute operates retrospectively when issued by a court of supreme jurisdiction)
- Obergefell v. Wymyslo, 962 F. Supp.2d 968 (S.D. Ohio 2013) (federal district court ruling requiring Ohio to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages on death certificates; persuasive only)
- United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (U.S. 2013) (federal decision addressing constitutional limits on DOMA; discussed regarding scope of federal rulings on state marriage definitions)