Defendant Contends That Divorce Parties Never Had an Actual Marriage

In the case of Joseph v. Singh, the defendant contended that the Supreme Court had no authority to enter a judgment of divorce and should have dismissed the complaint because the parties never entered into a valid marriage with one another. The trial court rejected this argument, and entered a judgment of divorce. The defendant to this action appealed.

The evidence before the Supreme Court established that, on October 13, 1995, the parties took part in a Hindu wedding ceremony, conducted by a Hindu religious leader and attended by several guests. The defendant asserted that the parties never intended to be married. Despite that assertion, the parties solemnly declared in the presence of a clergyman and at least one witness that they took each other as husband and wife and thus were entered into a valid marriage. The parties did not, however, have a valid marriage certificate. The defendant contended that this meant that the marriage was never legally binding. However, according to Domestic Relations Law § 12, all two individuals need to be married is:

No particular form or ceremony is required when a marriage is solemnized as herein provided by a clergyman or magistrate, but the parties must solemnly declare in the presence of a clergyman or magistrate and the attending witness or witnesses that they take each other as husband and wife.  In every case, at least one witness beside the clergyman or magistrate must be present at the ceremony.

So, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the parties’ failure to obtain a marriage license had no impact on the legal validity of their marriage under New York State law.

Defendant raises issues of judicial estoppel 

The defendant further argued that the plaintiff entered into another marriage in 2001 during which she asserted that her current marriage was not valid. The defendant argued that the plaintiff should be precluded from arguing that the marriage was valid because she previously argued that it was invalid for the purpose of pursuing another marriage. Under the doctrine of judicial estoppel,  “a party may not take a position in a legal proceeding that is contrary to a position he or she took in a prior proceeding, simply because his or her interests have changed.”

The plaintiff was subsequently divorced from her new husband in 2005. However, the appeals found that this argument was without merit. The plaintiff-wife never raised the issue of whether or not her first marriage was valid and made no argument one way or the other concerning the validity of her first marriage. The court found that absent pleadings that indicated that her first marriage was invalid, she was allowed to claim that her first marriage was valid for the purpose of this divorce proceeding.

Talk to a Rockland County Family Law Attorney Today 

The Law Office of Robert S. Sunshine represents the interests of Rockland County residents who are pursuing a divorce. Call our Westchester County family lawyers today to schedule an appointment, and we can begin guiding you to your next steps right away.

Source:

iapps.courts.state.ny.us/search/wicket/page?3–pnlResultContainer-pnlResult-8-lnkDocument