That’s Bigamy

A bigamous marriage is void, not voidable, according to a decision of the Maryland Appellate Court (formerly the Court of Special Appeals).

Author Peete had filed a divorce case against his wife Bessie and secured the requested relief in the District of Columbia. 

Unfortunately, defective service made the divorce a nullity.

Author then married Maryland (the woman, not the State) and later died. Maryland was appointed his executor.

Bessie sued several years later to annul the second marriage

Here, in 2012, the D.C. Superior Court ruled that Author’s 1991 judgment of divorce was void and as a result the court vacated the divorce decree. The effect was to create a bigamous marriage between Author and Maryland. A bigamous marriage is void because there is no way to “fix it.” See Ledvinka, 154 Md. App. at 436. Therefore, contrary to the court’s ruling, Bessie has standing in this unique situation to annul the bigamous marriage because that marriage directly affected her marriage to Author.

But courts don’t make passes at cases with laches

We conclude that the unusual set of facts before us necessitates the application of laches. This is particularly so where Bessie’s annulment suit was admittedly motivated only to gain financial rights, not to vindicate the status of the marriage. Additionally, because we have applied laches under similar circumstances, specifically where the petitioning party alleged fraud instead of bigamy, we conclude that to not apply laches in this case would work a grave injustice.

No remand

But we exercise our discretion and decline to do so in this instance when the record before us is clear and undisputed. The record demonstrates that Bessie waited a minimum of 13 years after Author’s death before filing the annulment action. She states in her appellate brief that eight of those 13 years, between 2012 (when the court vacated the divorce decree) and 2020 (when she filed her annulment action), were due to her “health, and COVID[.]” She does not elaborate beyond that statement. Although she offers no further elaboration, we conclude that Bessie’s 13-year delay in asserting her marital rights was unreasonable and unfairly prejudices Maryland (and Author). Accordingly, under the circumstances before us, we conclude that Bessie’s action to annul the marriage between Author and Maryland is barred by laches.

(Mike Frisch)