Petty v. Blount-Petty
2017 Ohio 7035
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Wife (Susan Blount-Petty) married Husband (William Petty) in a ceremonial ceremony on Dec. 21, 1996; Wife previously had been married to Kenneth Fox and later determined to have been still married to Fox at the time of the 1996 ceremony.
- Wife obtained a divorce from Fox in 1998, but Husband later filed for divorce from Wife on Mar. 4, 2016; Wife moved to dismiss and filed for a declaratory judgment arguing the 1996 marriage to Husband was void ab initio (bigamous) and thus there was no marriage or marital property.
- Trial court denied dismissal and held it had statutory authority under R.C. 3105.01(A) to grant a divorce even if the marriage was void ab initio; it also denied Wife’s declaratory judgment seeking a determination that no marital property existed.
- Trial proceeded; final divorce decree entered Dec. 6, 2016, with the court treating the period from the 1996 ceremony through separation as the marital period for purposes of dividing marital property and alimony.
- Wife appealed, raising four assignments of error challenging (1) the trial court’s ruling on Article XV, §11 of the Ohio Constitution, (2) constitutionality of R.C. 3105.01(A), (3) the court’s power to grant a divorce in this circumstance, and (4) the court’s authority to classify/divide marital property when the marriage was void ab initio.
Issues
| Issue | Petty (Plaintiff/Appellee) Argument | Blount-Petty (Defendant/Appellant) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Article XV, §11 of the Ohio Constitution (the 2004 “marriage amendment”) prevents the court from recognizing the relationship or granting divorce | The amendment has been invalidated by federal court rulings after Obergefell; the state may not rely on it to bar relief | The amendment’s second sentence (prohibiting recognition of marital-like statuses for unmarried couples) remains operative and bars recognition | Court held the amendment is unconstitutional post-Obergefell and does not bar the court from granting divorce or recognizing the relationship |
| Whether R.C. 3105.01(A) is constitutional given Article XV, §11 | R.C. 3105.01(A) authorizes divorce where a spouse had a living prior spouse at time of the later marriage; it provides statutory authority to grant divorce even if marriage void | Relying on the amendment, Wife argued the statute conflicts with the Ohio constitutional provision | Court held R.C. 3105.01(A) is valid and applicable; Obergefell rendered the state amendment invalid and it does not invalidate the statute |
| Whether the trial court had power to grant a divorce when the marriage was void ab initio (bigamy) | Under Eggleston and related Ohio precedents, a bigamous marriage is void but the court still may grant a divorce under R.C. 3105.01(A) | Wife argued the court lacked power to grant a divorce because there was no valid marriage to dissolve | Court held it had authority to grant divorce despite void marriage, consistent with Eggleston and R.C. 3105.01(A) |
| Whether the court could classify and divide "marital property" acquired during a marriage void ab initio | If the court can grant divorce under R.C. 3105.01(A), it can equitably divide property acquired during the parties’ cohabitation/ceremonial period as marital property under R.C. 3105.171 | Wife argued that Eggleston permits divorce relief but does not allow treating property as marital property (i.e., no division for a void marriage) | Court held it could define the marital period from the ceremonial marriage to separation and divide property as marital property; Wife’s argument rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Eggleston v. Eggleston, 156 Ohio St. 422, 103 N.E.2d 395 (Ohio 1952) (holding a party to a bigamous/void marriage may obtain a divorce and related relief)
- Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (U.S. 2015) (invalidated state measures excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage, affecting state "defense of marriage" amendments)
- Holcomb v. Holcomb, 44 Ohio St.3d 128, 541 N.E.2d 597 (Ohio 1989) (trial court must equitably divide marital estate after divorce; appellate review is abuse-of-discretion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (Ohio 1983) (defines abuse-of-discretion standard)