*1 May v Leneair 1980]
MAY v LENEAIR 2, 1980, April Docket No. 78-2766. Submitted at Detroit. Decided 11, 1980. August May, Alan A. of the estate of defendant Lucille Leneair, previously adjudged incompetent, mentally brought an judicial seeking validity action declaration as to the of Joseph defendant Leneair’s to defendant A. Rice. judgment, summary Defendants moved which motion was granted, Wayne Court, Gilmore, J., Circuit Horace W. ruling compe- matter of law as a defendant Leneair had tency marry. appeals. Plaintiff Held: adjudged mentally incompetent Defendant Leneair had been prior marriage and, thus, to her statutory falls within the marriage prohibition. addition, such a is deemed Plaintiff, therefore, invalid law case and is void. stated a upon granted, requiring claim which relief could be a trial on grant summary judgment by the merits. of the trial court constitutes error. Reversed and remanded. J., remedy Beasley, dissented. He would hold
declaratory judgment adjudicate is not available to [9] [6,12, [7] [8] [II] [10] [3] [I] [2, [5] Power of 24 Am Jur Formal 4] 4 Am Jur 24 Am Jur 41 Am Jur 5 Am Jur 61 Am Jur ALR3d 681. 4 Am Jur to sue for 73 ALR2d 250. 22 Am Am Jur 52 Am Jur 22 Am Jur requirements Jur incompetent spouse’s guardian, committee, 2d, Appeal 2d, 2d, 2d, 2d, 2d, 2d, Pleading 2d, Incompetent or to 2d, References granting Annulment of Annulment of 2d, Marriage Divorce Annulment Divorce and Declaratory Judgments amake 2d, Declaratory Judgments and Error 726. and judgment or vacation of § for Points compromise 229 et Separation §§ Separation Persons 1.§ Marriage Marriage Marriage 17,19. § seq. or order as in Headnotes § or settlement in such suit. 6 59.§ 71.§ § 74.§ 271. §§ divorce 477. regards appealability. 59.§ 79. annulment of or next friend 99 rather, proceeding putative marriage; should be in the of a parties. between the He would form of an annulment action grant summary judgment re- trial court’s reverse the or, plaintiffs complaint, should mand for dismissal of *2 pleadings bring an action elect to amend his entitlement and annulment, for trial on the merits. Opinion of the Court Legal Pleadings — Summary Judgment — Judgments — Basis 1. Allegations — — Denial. Factual ground opposing summary judgment A motion for on the that the upon party which relief can has failed to state a claim be alone, granted upon by pleadings is to be tested review legal complaint, looking not whether it can to the basis allegations factually supported; the are taken as be factual true, along may fairly with inferences or conclusions which and, alleged, is so unless the claim from the facts drawn clearly as a matter of law that no factual devel- unenforceable recover, right opment possibly justify can a the motion (GCR 1963, 117.2[1]). should be denied Marriage Incompetence — — — 2. Mental Health Prohibition Statutes. incompetent adjudicated mentally falls A who has been (MCL 551.6; marriage prohibition statutory MSA within the 25.6). Incompetence — — 3. Health Definition. Mental mentally incompetent person mentally A is one who is so affected deprived normal action or who lacks of sane and as to be capacity manner the sufficient to understand a reasonable performing. nature and effect of the act he is Marriage Incompetence — — — 4. Health Mental Contracts Validity. Marriage is a civil contract to which the consent of however, capable contracting essential; is while an law of guardianships incompetent subsisting is under actual and estate, presumed incompetent conclusively a he to make is contract, thus, incompetent adjudicated mental cannot valid marriage attempted enter a valid and such an
void. Appeal — — 5. Decided. Limited Issues Not Review Appeals on review to issues decided The Court of is limited May v Leneair court, presented
lower and issues raised and but not decided appeal. lower court cannot be heard on Declaratory Judgments Judgments — — .6. of Mar- Annulment riage. holding marriage declaratory judgment ' A to be void different annulling pretended marriage; judgment than annulled, legal declaratory would not be and the effect of the judgment say if would be to an annulment action were brought would be annulled. Marriage. — — Equity 7. Courts Jurisdiction Annulment equity jurisdiction Annulment can arise from the inherent which necessity circuit courts derive from the constitution without the prohibited by of statute where it is not law. Judgments —’ — 8. Divorce Collateral Attack. judgment may collaterally A divorce not be attacked. Marriage — — — 9. Actions Real Parties in Interest Annulment — Divorce. *3 parties The real in interest in annulment or divorce action parties marriage. are the to the Declaratory Party — — 10. Actions Relief Real in Interest. declaratory may brought only by party An action for relief a subject against with an interest matter and a defendant with a similar interest. Marriage — Incompetents — — 11. Actions Annulment Real Party — — in Interest Guardians Plaintiffs and Defen- dants. brought guardian An annulment action on behalf incompetent incompetent plain- must be in the name of the as tiff, guardian plaintiff, naming and not in the name of the as incompetent partner alleged marriage and the to the as defendants. Declaratory — Judgments Marriage — —
12. Actions Annul- ments. Declaratory judgments concerning validity of a permitted; proceeding should not be should be in the form of an annulment action where there is a between necessity litigate marriage. validity Opinion of the Court — Marriage — Validity — 13. Actions Collateral Attack Declaratory Judgment. party may collaterally A validity third not attack the of a marriage by way declaratory judgment. of a Alpert, Charles plaintiff. E. Cooper,
Elbert for defendants. Gillxs, P.J., H. Before: J. and Allen and Beas- ley, JJ. Gillis, Plaintiff,
J. H. P. J. Leneair, estate of Lucille present commenced the action seeking judicial declaration as to the validity or invalidity of the defendants’
Plaintiff’s complaint alleged the following rele- vant facts: 9,
That on 1970, November Ms. Leneair was adjudicated to be a mentally incompetent in an order of the Wayne Court, County Probate 15, 1975,
That on July Ms. Leneair pe- filed a tition in Wayne County Probate Court seeking restoration of her competency, 18, 1975,
That on July the defendants were married, 16,
That on July at the conclusion of a jury pursuant trial held to Ms. Leneair’s petition, she was found to be then and there mentally incompetent affairs, handle her own
That believes the marriage was ab initio and, invalid therefore, seeks a determina- tion of invalidity of the marriage. 17, 1977,
On March the defendants filed a mo- *4 tion for summary judgment, 1963, GCR 117.2. The motion failed to state which subsection of the rule it brought was under. The motion was granted, lower court ruling that as a matter of law Ms. May 213 v Leneair Opinion of the Court marry. ap- had to Plaintiff competency
Leneair to that peals pursuant from the order entered ruling. granting
An
of the order
defen-
examination
granted
motion shows that
the motion was
dants’
a cause of
because
failed to state
action.
117.2(1).
1963,
reason set forth
GCR
That
is the
grant
shall
review the
of sum-
we
Accordingly,
under that subrule.
mary judgment
review of a
governing
The standard
this Court’s
a motion for
grant
summary judgment
or denial of
117.2(1)
GCR
is well settled. The
based on
Todd
by
pleadings
is to be tested
alone.
motion
346;
(1974),
214
733
Biglow,
v
App
NW2d
51 Mich
(1974).
lv den
A mentally incompetent person is one who is so
affected mentally
deprived
as to be
of sane and
normal action or who lacks sufficient capacity to
understand
a reasonable manner
the nature
and effect of the act he is performing. Dayiantis v
Blackhawk,
Inc,
33 Mich App
203; 189 NW2d
(1971),
In
citing
Estate,
re Johnson’s
(1938).1
213;
Since the Legislature intended to bar one found to be suffering from the least grade severe mental an deficiency, adjudged feeble-minded per- son, from marriage, it is reasonable to conclude they intended to bar those suffering from more severe grades of mentally from deficiency marriage. An examination of the definition of a mentally incompetent person above cited indicates such necessarily falls within the mentally incompetent person 1A may possesses high be one who intelligence quotient ing may completed university and who have train- present incapable but due rationalizing to his state of mind is thoughts some of his or actions. May v Leneair op Opinion the Court
latter class. hold that Accordingly, adjudica- we tion of mental is a bar to a incompetency subse- quent marriage under MCL MSA 25.6.
Furthermore,
result,
the same
adjudica-
that an
tion of
subsequent
mental
bars a
incompetency
marriage, obtains
independently
statute.
Mutual
Acacia
Life Ins Co v
Jago,
*6
360, 362;
(1937),
Supreme
subsisting guardianship of he conclusively (Em- presumed incompetent to make a valid contract.” phasis supplied.)
Marriage is a civil contract
to which the consent of
parties
capable
law of contracting
is essential.
Yanoff,
Yanoff v
383, 387;
237 Mich
The becomes whether the marriage here, which is prohibited statute and deemed law, invalid case is voidable or void. The an- swer is that it is void.
The cardinal
rule of statutory construction is to
give
ascertain
effect
to the
intention
Comm,
vMelia
Legislature.
Employment Security
544,
346 Mich
562;
It is
objective
statute is to
prohibit
absolutely
such as that
in the
Thus,
instant
case.
in order
to best effect
purpose, Lake Carriers’ Ass’n v Mac-
statutory
Mullan,
357,
366;
which were to the lower court due granting to the of summary judgment, were not decided. The Appeals Court of is limited on review *7 lower court. Norton to issues decided by the Carr, Shores v 715, 81 723; Mich App 265 NW2d Co, (1978), Hernandez v Consumers Power 288; Mich App NW2d
Reversed and remanded. J., concurred.
Allen, (dissenting). Beasley, J. I respectfully dissent. case, In this plaintiff, Alan A. May, guardian as Leneair, the estate of Lucille men adjudged tally incompetent person, filed a complaint for declaratory judgment to determine the validity of a claimed marriage ward, between his Lucille Leneair, at a time when she was allegedly ad May v Leneair
judged mentally incompetent person, and defen Joseph dant Andree Rice. Defendants filed a mo tion for summary judgment, alleging that the statutory remedy declaratory judgment not a proper to test the way marriage, that question the of the competency of the codefendant at the attempted marriage time of the cannot be properly raised a motion for summary judgment marriage, so as to void the plaintiff, and that standing guardian, is without to bring against suit hearing argument his ward. After oral and review held, ing parties, briefs filed the the trial judge law,1 defendant, as a matter of Lucille Le neair, competent was to enter into and, therefore, granted the motion for summary judgment. He also stated: footnote, although I just say "I as a am not want this, question ruling very I some serious as to on have this, standing bring but that decision, it, ruling so I am not on but necessary not contracting mar- capable of ruling that she is I am riage.” holds that the statute appeal, majority On mentally incompe prohibits adjudicated contracting marriage.2 a lawful The tent from upon premise decision of the rests majority was void parties’ attempted than then states: majority rather voidable. alleged prior adjudication properly "[P]laintiff incompetency mental of Ms. Leneair and her subse- thus, [plaintiff-guardian], quent marriage. He stated a relief, upon invalidity a declaration of the claim which 117.2(1).” granted. could be GCR 1See, MSA 25.6. *8 2 Id. 209 99 Mich
218 majority’s is to remand decision The effect the trial court for trial to determine this case may plaintiff-guardian obtain a whether or not establishing parties’ declaratory judgment attempted that the marriage is void and invalid. posture because
The of the trial will be unusual guardian, plaintiff, carry the will burden marriage proof prove that the defendants which Joseph ward, Leneair, Lucille A. Rice his entered presuma- succeeds, into is void. If holding judgment purported bly declaratory a marriage to be void would be entered. judg- declaratory
But, it noted that a should be marriage holding to be void is a different ment judgment annulling pre- judicial animal than a marriage would not be an- tended legal declaratory judg- nulled; the effect of such a say if an ment is to brought annulment action were would be annuled. Michigan, totally statutory, while is divorce equity annulment can arise from the inherent (circuit) jurisdiction trial which basic courts necessity derive from the constitution without the of statute where it is not prohibited by Thus, law. Michigan Supreme Romatz,3 in v Romatz Michigan expanded jurisdiction Court putative to affirm annulment of courts that place had taken in Ohio.4 Marriage is defined to be a civil statute parties capable contract to which the consent of law of specific contracting quite essential.5 The statute incapable specifying some who are contracting marriage as follows: * * * person, capable idiot,
"No insane shall 3 (1959). 81; 432 NW2d Sovereign Sovereign, 65; v NW2d 551.2; MSA 25.2. 5 MCL *9 May 219 v Leneair by Beasley, Dissent J. * **
contracting person No who has been any public confined in or asylum institution as a feeble- minded, adjudged court contracting the office of regularly patient, imbecile or insane or who has been insane, or by feeble-minded an imbecile a competent of jurisdiction, capable shall be of marriage without, the by before issuance county clerk of the filing license to in marry, the county a the clerk verified from certificate 2 physicians licensed of this state that such person completely been has cured of insanity, such imbecility or feeble-mindedness and that there is no probability such will any transmit of such 6 defects or disabilities to the of marriage.”* issue such It upon is this statute which the majority bases the grant reversal of of summary judgment by the trial court. provide
The statutes also as follows: * * * marriages "All when solemnized either the parties within idiot, shall, was insane or an if solemnized state, absolutely this be void.”7 validity tioned in the excepting hereinafter "When a thereof is made, may the two cases doubted, [2] preceding where a file a supposed for any petition sections, contrary provision to of the causes men be or either void, bill or party, the circuit court of county parties, where or one of them, reside, or in chancery, annulling the court of for same, petition and such or shall be filed and bill thereon, proceedings shall be had as in the case petition upon divorce; or bill filed in said court for a and proof due nullity of the it shall be by declared void nullity.”8 decree or sentence of validity "When the marriage shall be denied or parties, doubted either of party may the other petition aforesaid, file a bill or in the manner affirming the marriage; proof upon and due 6 551.6; MCL MSA 25.6. 7 552.1; MCL MSA 25.81. 8 MSA 25.83. thereof, a decree it shall declared court; degree, unless reversed such
sentence persons upon all conc appeal, be conclusive on erned.”9 shall only seem indicate that would These texts action bring an putative marriage may to a party CJS, p example, Marriage, it. annul For § provides: *10 only insanity may had at the suit "Annulment for be party the the parties the to Where of one of insane, generally annulment seeking is the suit should friend, of guardian brought by or next on behalf his be necessary ward, person authority, the insane becomes a the party. statute, and of guardian no in the absence A has own to set to an action in his name maintain marriage insanity.” ground the of his ward’s on aside omitted.) added; (Emphasis footnotes 2d, of is Am Jur Annulment similar thrust Of 489, 71, provides: which Marriage, p § marriage personal right a voidable is a "The to annul marriage the for annulment of such a right and action marriage by party to only the a the can be maintained contract under or or, is spouse seeking annulment where legal disability, by one in his or her behalf some person designated Some statutes by by the statute. annul a voidable mar- expressly require that suit to laboring party the riage under brought prosecuted by be marriage disability the to render the claimed rule, cannot, general A third as voidable. maintain an is to annul a which action cases, of merely In some the child the voidable. annul- party proceeding to where has been made a the sought. ment was merely not voidable "Where is void and the guilty as well general party that either
the rule is —the 9MCL MSA 25.84. May v Leneair as party may annulment, the innocent sue for —
where at marriage ceremony the time the per- was one the parties formed of was married to a third person, public for favors the policy declaration of nul- (Footnotes omitted.) marriage.” lity of a void 2d, 4 Am Marriage, And Jur Annulment p of § 491 provides: practice states, "Under the in most to action marriage brought by grounds annul a on incompetency of mental
may incompetent spouse, conservator next relative or friend of the guardian, committee,
or the or of the incompetent. right guard- the of bring ian to the annulment justified suit because rights property of the it duty ward which is the of the guardian annulment protect to are affected. Since an action for based, on not the voluntary decision the lack denies to dissolve the but the on fact it, capacity to consummate the rule which right guardian or conservator of an incompetent bring for controlling. suit is not divorce courts, however, deny right guardian Some committee or incompetent bring the annulment action, usually controlling reason stat- provides ute incompetent litem for suit through his next friend or ad aby relative.” *11 (Footnotes omitted.) Sections 35 and 36 of 552 Chapter Michi- gan Divorce statutes provide as follows: 35. A ground "Sec. bill to annul on the insanity admitted idiocy, may by any person be exhibited prosecute the court to as the next friend such idiot or lunatic.”10 "Sec. 36. may of a lunatic also be void, upon lunatic, declared the restoration application after reason; case, but in such no sentence of nullity pronounced, shall appear be it if shall that
10 MCL MSA 25.111. App 209 99 wife, after as husband parties freely cohabited to a mind.”11 sound was restored lunatic attempted regarding Michigan decisions While have been marriages on attacks collateral nonexistent, the law scarce, if not annulled are not be may judgment a divorce clear seems Michigan Life Ins v In White attacked. collaterally life insurance Co,12 to decide whether in a suit or to the first wife go to second would proceeds judg in a divorce provision of a virtue wife ment, said: this Court collaterally at- may not judgment
"A divorce fre- However, this state have the courts of tacked. a divorce proper it is to construe quently held that property adjustment of for an judgment providing requires clarifica- disposition rights the intended when added.) (Emphasis tion.” Anspach,13 v Couyoumjian import similar Of Court Supreme said: where not be of divorce could validity of the decree "[T]he parties except for lack of by third collaterally attacked jurisdiction.” prohib- rule I believe that this general, would ap- judgments attack on divorce
iting collateral cannot be they judgments; to annulment plies also collaterally. attacked 201.5(1) of a power to the relates
GCR
as follows:
sue
* * * incompetent
"Representation. Whenever an
43 Mich
552.36; MSA 25.112.
371, 386;
653, 657;
103 NW2d
It should 1963, 201.2, also be noted that GCR codified,14 which has spells been out the real party in provision interest as follows: Party
"Real in Every Interest. prose- action shall be cuted in the interest; name the real in party but [a] * * * * * * guardian may sue in his own name without joining with him party for whose benefit the action brought.” was
In any annulment action divorce the real parties in interest appear would to be the to the marriage. case,
In this seeks a declaratory judg ment under GCR 521. An action for declara tory relief be may brought only by party with an interest subject against matter and a defen dant with similar interest. The rule that every prosecuted action must in the name of the real party in interest has been to applied actions for relief.15 declaratory
Since Lucille
Leneair
the real
party
inter-
est in any litigation concerning
of her
attempted marriage
Joseph
Rice,
to
A.
she should
be a
party
While,
such action.
in view of
adjudication
her mental
incompetency,
annulment
action would need
be brought
her
guardian,
it must be in
plaintiff,
her name as
rather
than
a suit brought
her
against herself
and Joseph A. Rice. But
this
MSA 27A.2041.
Driver,
(1961), City
Molinero v
341;
In bring a suit annulment standing had to against on of his ward behalf purported defendant, A. Rice. Joseph declaratory
I remedy do not believe validity adjudicate available to judgment A third not collat- marriage. party may putative marriage by way of a attack the erally a declaratory judgment. case, guardian obtain may only
In this Jo- against annulment case a trial of his ward’s A. if amends his entitlement seph Rice he by plaintiff case for annulment indicate Leneair, incompe- mentally of Lucille A. Rice. in this person, against Joseph Only tent trial on the merits between can there be a way interest, in this can parties only way real and binding there on the annull- judgment be a ing putative marriage. their I general, majority’s am accord with the the mental holding of the statutes analysis her con- of Lucille Leneair incompetency prohibits Thus, for the reasons tracting a lawful indicated, grant trial court’s I would reverse the 117.2(1) under GCR summary judgment plaintiffs to dismiss remand to the trial court his entitle- he elects to amend complaint unless May v Leneair ment and pleadings bring his case into conform- ance with opinion. this If he amend, did so then the annulment case would be set down for trial on the merits.