Case Title: Kelley v. Kelley

Citation: 210 Or. 226, 310 P.2d 328

Docket Number: 

State: oregon

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Date: 1957-04-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
Affirmed April 24, 1957.
*228 C.R. Sloniger, of Portland, argued the cause and filed a brief for appellants.
C.E. Wheelock, of Portland, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Wheelock & Richardson, of Portland.
Before WARNER,[*] and ROSSMAN, LUSK, BRAND, PERRY[**] and McALLISTER, Justices.
McALLISTER, J.
The plaintiffs, Shelton D. Kelley and John W. Kelley, appeal from two orders of the circuit court for Multnomah county holding in effect that the marriage of their father, John L. Kelley, to the defendant, Ruth M. Kelley, was valid and that she as his widow is entitled to share with the plaintiffs in his estate.
The appellants' brief contains a detailed statement *229 of facts, all admitted by defendant in her brief, from which it appears that the defendant was formerly the wife of Alvin Earle Gehri and resided with him in the state of Washington; that Gehri filed a suit for divorce against the defendant in the Superior Court for Pierce county, Washington; that on March 18, 1949 an interlocutory decree of divorce was granted to Gehri which provided that it did not dissolve the marriage or grant a divorce; that the applicable Washington statute authorized the entry of a final decree of divorce at any time after six months from the entry of the interlocutory decree; that on June 2, 1950, before any final decree had been entered in said divorce suit, defendant and the decedent, John L. Kelley, both of whom were then living in Oregon, were married at Stevenson, Washington, and after the marriage ceremony returned to Oregon where they lived as man and wife until the death of Kelley; that no other marriage ceremony was performed between defendant and Kelley; that on September 8, 1950, upon motion of the defendant, a final decree of divorce was entered in the Gehri suit; that on August 14, 1952, Kelley died in Multnomah county; that on August 29, 1952, upon the application of Alvin Earle Gehri, the Superior Court of Pierce county entered an amended final decree of divorce in the suit referred to above, which amended decree was entered nunc pro tunc as of September 19, 1949; that on September 3, 1952, defendant was appointed administratrix of the estate of the decedent, qualified, and has since acted in that capacity; that prior to his marriage with defendant, Kelley had made a will leaving all his property to his sons and had neither changed said will nor executed a new one after his marriage to defendant.
Plaintiffs filed a petition for the removal of defendant as administratrix on the ground that she was *230 not the widow of decedent and on the same day also filed a petition for determination of heirship under ORS 117.510 to 117.560. The circuit court denied the petition for the removal of defendant as administratrix and entered an order determining that the heirs of the decedent, John L. Kelley, were his widow, the defendant, Ruth M. Kelley and his two sons. From these orders the plaintiffs have appealed.
1. The principal question for determination is whether the entry on August 29, 1952, of a final decree of divorce between Gehri and defendant by the Superior Court of Washington nunc pro tunc as of September 19, 1949, pursuant to the provisions of § 26.08.230, Revised Code of Washington, validated the marriage on June 2, 1950 of defendant and the decedent, John L. Kelley. If the marriage was valid, it revoked the will executed by decedent prior to such marriage.
In Huard v. McTeigh, 113 Or 279, 287, 232 P 658, this court, in holding invalid a marriage entered into in British Columbia in violation of a Washington divorce decree, which provided that neither party should marry for six months from the entry of said decree, stated the applicable general rules in the following language:
2. The Supreme Court of Washington has consistently held that an interlocutory decree does not dissolve the marriage and until a final decree of divorce is entered the marital relation has not been severed. See Lewis v. Department of Labor and Industries, 190 Wash 620, 70 P2d 298, and cases therein cited.
Section 26.04.020, Revised Code of Washington provides in part as follows:
3. The Washington Supreme Court has uniformly held that marriages entered into in violation of the above statute are void ab initio. Beyerle v. Bartsch, 111 Wash 287, 190 P 239, Barker v. Barker, 31 Wash2d 506, 197 P2d 439 and In re Gallagher's Estate, 35 Wash2d 512, 213 P2d 621.
4. The fact that respondent and Kelley continued to live together as husband and wife after the entry of the final decree of divorce on September 8, 1950, when a valid marriage could have been solemnized, did not legalize the ceremonial marriage which had been entered into by them at Stevenson on June 2, 1950 in *232 violation of the above Washington statute. Lewis v. Department of Labor and Industries, supra.
From the admitted facts and the above authorities it is obvious that unless the marriage of defendant to Kelley was validated by the entry on August 29, 1952 of a final decree of divorce in the Gehri suit nunc pro tunc as of September 19, 1949, defendant is not the widow of decedent and is not entitled to share in his estate. The nunc pro tunc decree was entered pursuant to the provisions of § 26.08.230, Revised Code of Washington, which reads as follows:
The above statute was enacted by chapter 135, Laws of Washington 1949 and was in effect when the ceremonial marriage was entered into by defendant and Kelley at Stevenson on June 2, 1950.
5. Except for minor immaterial exceptions, the above statute is an exact copy of § 133 of the California Civil Code. The Washington legislature having adopted the California statute, is normally presumed to have adopted the construction theretofore placed upon the statute by the courts of California. Washington Escrow Co. v. McKinnon, 40 Wash2d 432, 243 P2d 1044.
Prior to the adoption of the statute in Washington in 1949, the California District Courts of Appeal on several occasions had construed the statute. Macedo v. Macedo, 29 Cal App2d 387, 84 P2d 552, Ringel v. Superior Court, 54 Cal App2d 34, 128 P2d 558, In re Hughes' Estate, 80 Cal App2d 550, 182 P2d 253, Armstrong v. Armstrong, 85 Cal App2d 482, 193 P2d 495.
From the opinion in In re Hughes' Estate, supra, we quote the following:
The historical background and the reasons for the enactment of the California statute are set out in Macedo v. Macedo, supra, and we assume that a similar *234 background and like reasons persuaded the Washington legislature to adopt the California statute.
6. In view of the interpretation placed upon the California statute by the courts of that state and presumably adopted by the Washington legislature in enacting RCW 26.08.230, we are satisfied that the entry on August 29, 1952 of the final decree in the Gehri divorce suit nunc pro tunc as of September 19, 1949, validated the marriage of defendant and Kelley unless such a result was prevented by the intervening death of Kelley on August 14, 1952.
In the case of In re Hughes' Estate, supra, the California court considered the effect of the death of one of the parties to a divorce action upon the power of the court to enter a final judgment nunc pro tunc. The question to be decided was stated by the court in the following language:
The material portion of section 132 of the civil code referred to in the above quotation provided that the death of either party after the entry of the interlocutory decree did not impair the power of the court to enter a final judgment. In determining the effect of these two sections, the court said:
In Hamrick v. Hamrick, 119 Cal App2d 839, 260 P2d 188, it was also held that a decree of divorce entered nunc pro tunc after the death of John Hamrick validated an otherwise void marriage entered into by him prior to the entry of a final decree. The court quoted with approval and followed both Macedo v. Macedo, supra, and In re Hughes' Estate, supra.
7. In their brief, the appellants have properly pointed out that although Washington has adopted the provisions of section 133 of the California Civil Code, it does not have a statute similar to the section 132 referred to in the decision quoted from above. That is not material in the case at bar, however, because Kelley was not a party to the divorce suit between Alvin Earle Gehri and the defendant. It is a general rule, as stated in 1 Am Jur 83, Abatement § 110, that a suit for divorce abates upon the death of one of the parties thereto, but since Kelley was not a party to the Gehri divorce suit, his death did not abate that suit. Since both parties to the Gehri divorce suit were still living on August 29, 1952, the Washington court had authority under RCW 26.08.230 to enter on that date an amended final decree nunc pro tunc as of September 19, 1949.
If the marriage to Kelley could have been validated at any time before his death by the entry of a decree in the Gehri divorce suit, we see no reason why the marriage should not be validated by the entry of a nunc pro tunc decree after Kelley's death, so long as there is no impairment of vested rights of third parties.
8, 9. Although the validity of the marriage should be determined by the law of Washington, we believe *237 that in deciding the conflicting claims of the plaintiffs and the defendant to the property of the decedent situated in Oregon, we should adopt a finding in harmony with the settled law and policy of this state. In our opinion, the finding of the circuit court holding valid the marriage of defendant to John L. Kelley was in harmony with such law and public policy.
In Wadsworth v. Brigham et al., 125 Or 428, 259 P 299, 266 P 875, the plaintiff, Mercedes E. Wadsworth, brought a suit in the circuit court of Multnomah county alleging that she was the daughter and sole heir of John H. Brigham and that her father had died leaving a will in which she was not mentioned and that she was therefore entitled to inherit as against all of the beneficiaries named in the will, some of whom were collateral kindred. Mercedes contended that her mother, Emily E. Liddy, and the decedent, John R. Brigham, had lived together as husband and wife in Oregon for more than one year and that she was born on October 13, 1879 as a result of such cohabitation. There was no evidence that her parents had ever been married and since common law marriages have never been recognized in this state, Mercedes' rights, if any, depended solely upon the construction of Chapter 269, Oregon Laws 1925, which read as follows:
Shortly after Mercedes was born, John R. Brigham deserted Emily E. Liddy who was thereafter twice *238 married and died some years prior to 1925. John R. Brigham died on June 12, 1925, about 15 days after Chapter 269, Oregon Laws 1925 became effective. It thus appears that when the case was originally decided by this court in September, 1927, Mercedes was about 48 years of age, her parents were both dead, one before and one after the enactment of the statute, and Mercedes was asking this court to decree that the curative statute of 1925 was effective to unite her parents in marriage as of October 13, 1879, to legitimatize her birth and permit her to inherit the property of her father instead of the beneficiaries named in his will. In granting Mercedes the relief prayed for in her petition, this court, among other things, said:
Since the above case was decided the legislature has on six occasions enacted curative statutes to validate marriages void because entered into in violation of *241 ORS 107.110, which provides, in part, that neither party to a divorce "shall be capable of contracting marriage with a third person until the expiration of six months from the date of the decree." In addition, curative statutes to validate marriages void for other reasons were enacted in 1945 and 1955. See Chapter 118, Oregon Laws 1945 and Chapters 72 and 694, Oregon Laws 1955. All of these curative statutes are retrospective in operation. It is thus clear that the orders of the circuit court giving effect to the nunc pro tunc decree entered by the Washington court pursuant to the curative statute enacted by our sister state, RCW 26.08.230, is in conformity with the public policy of this state as evidenced by the many curative statutes enacted by our legislature.
10. In our opinion, the interest acquired by the plaintiffs in their father's estate upon his death was not the kind of vested right protected from the entry of a nunc pro tunc decree. The applicable rule is stated in 1 Freeman on Judgments (5th ed) 262, § 1238, as follows:
In support of the last sentence of the above text, the author cites Davidson v. Richardson, 50 Or 323, 89 P 742, 91 P 1080, wherein this court said:
11, 12. We have considered plaintiffs' contention that the Washington legislature intended that RCW 26.08.230 should operate retrospectively only to June 8, 1949, which contention is based upon the arrangement of Chapter 135, Washington Laws 1949 and Chapter 215, Washington Laws 1949, in the Revised Code of Washington. Although the statutes of Washington have been organized into a code, such code is only prima facie evidence of the law. The law must be determined from reading the statutes and when so considered, Chapter 215 does not limit the retrospective operation of Chapter 135.
The orders of the circuit court are affirmed.
[*]  Chief Justice when case argued.
[**]  Chief Justice when case decided.

AFFIRMED.