782 S.E.2d 182
Va. Ct. App.2016Background
- Deborah MacDougall and Richard Levick held a wedding ceremony in Virginia on December 21, 2002, but did not have a marriage license at that time; they obtained a license on January 6, 2003 and the officiant signed it later while the parties were not present.
- Both parties lived and behaved as spouses for years; MacDougall filed for divorce in 2011 and attached a 2009 marital agreement providing spousal support of $150,000 per year.
- The trial court initially ordered pendente lite support and later incorporated the marital agreement after finding Levick had waived some challenges; Levick later moved to amend to assert the marriage was invalid because the ceremony preceded the license.
- After amendment and an evidentiary hearing, the trial court declared the marriage void (annulled), set aside the marital agreement for mutual mistake, suspended future support, denied restitution of past pendente lite and incorporated support, and awarded MacDougall attorneys’ fees.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed: (1) allowing Levick to amend pleadings was within discretion; (2) statutory requirements require a license before solemnization so no valid marriage was contracted; (3) Code § 20-31 (curative statute) and equitable doctrines did not save the marriage; (4) the marital agreement was rescinded for mutual mistake; and (5) the trial court did not abuse discretion in denying restitution of past support or in awarding attorneys’ fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (MacDougall) | Defendant's Argument (Levick) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Levick should have been allowed to amend pleading to challenge marriage validity | Amendment unfair after extensive litigation; facts known earlier | Amendment timely and permissible; no prejudice; public policy allows annulment suits | Trial court did not abuse discretion in permitting amendment |
| Whether a valid marriage existed despite ceremony without a license | The parties effectively solemnized the marriage later by mailing the license and relying on rabbi’s signature | Statute requires license before solemnization; ceremony before license invalidates marriage | No lawful marriage under Va. law; ceremony before license + no subsequent solemnization = no marriage |
| Whether curative statute (Code § 20-31) or equitable doctrines (estoppel/laches) validate the marriage | Parties relied on belief they were married; estoppel or marriage by estoppel should apply | Curative statute inapplicable (no solemnization under license); equitable doctrines not available because facts known to both and statute governs | Curative statute does not apply; equitable doctrines do not compel different outcome |
| Whether the marital agreement should be enforced after annulment | Agreement incorporated into orders and Levick waived challenges; MacDougall entitled to support and property relief | Agreement premised on mistaken belief of marriage; mutual mistake justifies rescission | Agreement rescinded for mutual mistake; waiver did not cover unknown claim based on lack of marriage |
| Whether Levick is entitled to restitution of pendente lite/support and reversal of fee awards after annulment | If marriage void, support and fees paid should be returned | Court had jurisdiction to award pendente lite and fees during litigation; restitution discretionary and not requested in limited form | Trial court had jurisdiction and did not abuse discretion in denying full restitution; attorneys’ fees award upheld; appellate fees remanded for assessment against Levick |
Key Cases Cited
- Offield v. Davis, 100 Va. 250 (Va. 1902) (statutory marriage formalities are mandatory)
- Toler v. Oakwood Smokeless Coal Corp., 173 Va. 425 (Va. 1939) (legislature controls marriage formalities; void vs. voidable distinction)
- Payne v. Commonwealth, 201 Va. 209 (Va. 1959) (marriage involving persons under age of consent held voidable)
- Kleinfield v. Veruki, 7 Va. App. 183 (Va. Ct. App. 1989) (trial court may order pendente lite support in annulment suits)
- Rahnema v. Rahnema, 47 Va. App. 645 (Va. Ct. App. 2006) (burden to overcome marriage presumption requires clear, cogent, and convincing evidence)
- Iron City Sav. Bank v. Isaacsen, 158 Va. 609 (Va. 1932) (distinguishing potential and actual jurisdiction; interlocutory orders preserve status quo)
- Heflinger v. Heflinger, 136 Va. 289 (Va. 1923) (public policy allows suits to declare null marriages that never existed)