Morris v. Goodwin
148 A.3d 63
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2016Background
- Katherine Morris married Isaac Goodwin in Virginia in August 2011; he was a U.S. Army staff sergeant and she was a college student. Katherine died by suicide in May 2012.
- Marguerite Morris was appointed personal representative of Katherine’s estate in September 2012.
- In June 2013 Marguerite (pro se) filed a petition in St. Mary’s County Circuit Court to annul Katherine’s marriage, alleging Goodwin married Katherine for military benefits and committed other fraud. Katherine was alleged to have known she’d been defrauded prior to her death.
- The circuit court dismissed the petition with prejudice for lack of standing (personal representative cannot seek annulment based on fraud). No hearing was held before dismissal.
- On appeal, the Court of Special Appeals reviewed (de novo) whether a personal representative has standing to annul a marriage for fraud and whether the trial court erred by not holding a hearing under Md. Rule 2-311(f).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a personal representative may prosecute an annulment for fraud after the decedent’s death | Marguerite: ET § 7-401(y) authorizes a personal representative to "stand for the decedent" and prosecute actions, so she can seek annulment of Katherine’s marriage for fraud | Goodwin: (implicitly) annulment for fraud is a personal, voidable remedy that abates at death and cannot be pursued by a third party | Court: Personal representative lacks standing; fraud-based annulment is voidable and may be sought only during the joint lives of the parties |
| Whether the trial court erred by dismissing without a hearing under Md. Rule 2-311(f) | Marguerite: Rule 2-311(f) forbids dispositive rulings without a requested hearing; she requested a hearing, so dismissal without one denied due process | Goodwin: (implicitly) even if procedural error occurred, dismissal for lack of standing is mandated by law so any hearing would be futile | Court: Trial court erred procedurally but remand for a hearing would be futile because standing doctrine requires dismissal; affirmed dismissal on substantive ground |
Key Cases Cited
- Clark v. Foust-Graham, 615 S.E.2d 398 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005) (personal representative continued an annulment action that was commenced while decedent was alive)
- Schaub v. Schaub, 162 P.2d 966 (Cal. Ct. App. 1945) (annulment judgment where plaintiff died and personal representative substituted as party)
- Picarella v. Picarella, 20 Md. App. 499 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1974) (fraud is a ground for annulment; voidable marriages must be attacked during the parties’ lives)
- Gibbons v. Blair, 376 N.W.2d 22 (N.D. 1985) (majority rule that fraud-based (voidable) annulments cannot be brought after death of a spouse)
- Ledvinka v. Ledvinka, 154 Md. App. 420 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2003) (traces equity court authority to grant annulments and discusses fraud as a basis)