Title: Klittner v. Steiner

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 91-386

                              APRIL TERM, 1992

 Gregory Klittner
                                   }          APPEALED FROM:
                                   }
                                   }
      v.                           }          Windham Family Court
                                   }
                                   }
 Richard Steiner, as Independent   }
 Representative of the Estate of   }          DOCKET NO. S103-90WmF
 Martin L. Von Steiner

              In the above entitled cause the Clerk will enter:


      The sole issue on appeal is whether 15 V.S.A. { 514 eliminates any
 action at common law for an annulment grounded on "lunacy" when both
 parties to the marriage are dead.  We hold, as did the trial court, that
 under these circumstances { 514 controls and an annulment is not available.
 Accordingly, we affirm.

      The relevant statute, { 514(b), provides:

             When a marriage is sought to be annulled on the ground
           of the lunacy of one of the parties, on the complaint of
           a relative of the lunatic, such marriage may be declared
           void during the continuance of such lunacy, or after the
           death of the lunatic in that condition and during the
           lifetime of the other party to the marriage.

 (Emphasis added.)

      Section 514(b) plainly states that a declaration of annulment of a
 marriage entered into by a lunatic (see 15 V.S.A. { 512) who has since died
 is available "during the lifetime of the other party to the marriage." (FN1)
 In this case, since both parties were dead, an annulment was not available.
 Application of the maxim "expressio unius est exclusio alterius"  --
 inclusion of one thing is the exclusion of another -- is appropriate in this
 case.  See Clymer v. Webster, 2 Vt. L.W. 228, 231 (1991).

      Plaintiff argues we should ignore the final clause of { 514(b), relying
 on Langle v. Kurkul, 146 Vt. 513, 516,