FILED

October 3, 1995

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk

I N THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

EASTERN SECTI ON

CHARLES WI LLI AM COULTER a nd ) HAMI LTON COUNTY

wi f e DONNA LEE COULTER ) 03A01- 9505- CH- 00150

)

Pl a i ntif f s - Appe lla nt s )

)

)

v. ) HON. HOWELL N. PEOPLES,

) CHANCELLOR

 )

RI CHARD ANTHONY HENDRI CKS )

)

De f e nda nt - Appe l l e e ) AFFI RMED AND REMANDED

W. GERALD TI DWELL, J R. , OF CHATTANOOGA FOR APPELLANTS

WADE K. CANNON a nd TERRY ATKI N CAVETT OF CHATTANOOGA FOR APPELLEE

O P I N I O N

 Godda r d, P. J .

Thi s i s a s ui t by Cha r l e s Wi l l i a m Coul t e r a nd Donna Le e

Coul t e r , br ot he r a nd s i s t e r of Li nda Di a ne Ros e He ndr i c ks , who

di e d i n a n a ut omobi l e a c c i de nt on Apr i l 24, 1994, s e e ki ng t o ha ve

he r ma r r i a ge on Apr i l 1, 1994, t o Ri c ha r d Ant hony He ndr i c ks ,

a nnul l e d. The Cha nc e l l or gr a nt e d Mr . He ndr i c ks ' mot i on unde r

Rul e 12. 02( 6) of t he Te nne s s e e Rul e s of Ci vi l Pr oc e dur e , whi c h
2

c ont e nde d t he c ompl a i nt f a i l e d " t o s t a t e a c l a i m upon whi c h

r e l i e f can be gr a nt e d. "

The br ot he r a nd s i s t e r a ppe a l c ont e ndi ng t he Cour t wa s

i n e rror .

The Compl a i na nt s al l e ge t ha t t he y ar e t he s ol e he i r s

a nd ne xt of ki n of t he de c e a s e d, who wa s ma r r i e d t o Mr . He ndr i c ks

on Apr i l 1, 1994, a nd t ha t t he i r s i s t e r , a s a l r e a dy not e d, di e d

on Apr i l 24, 1994. The y c ont e nd t ha t t he ma r r i a ge wa s voi d a b

i nitio be c a us e i t wa s e nt e r e d i nt o i n j e s t wi t h no i nt e nt i on on

t he pa r t of the i r s i s t e r to c ons umma t e it, a nd tha t the i r s i s t e r ,

be c a us e of he r me nt a l di s a bi l i t y, di d not ha ve t he c a pa c i t y t o

e nt e r i nt o a ma r r i a ge cer e mony. 

Mr . He ndr i c ks ' br i e f accur a t e l y s t a t e s our s t a nda r d of

r e vi e w a s t o Rul e 12. 02( 6) mot i ons :

I n c ons i de r i ng t he a ppe a l of a Rul e 12. 02( 6)

mot i on t o di s mi s s , t he Cour t of Appe a l s i s r e qui r e d t o

t a ke t he a l l e ga t i ons of t he c ompl a i nt a s t r ue a nd t o

c ons t r ue t he a l l e ga t i ons l i be r a l l y i n f a vor of t he

pl a i nt i f f . Pe mbe r t on v. Ame r i c a n Di s tille d Spi r its

Co. , 664 S. W. 2d 690, 691 ( Te nn. 1984) . Si nc e t hi s

a ppe a l i s be f or e t he Cour t of Appe a l s on a que s t i on of

l a w, t he s c ope of t he r e vi e w i s de novo with no

pr e s umpt i on of c or r e c t ne s s f or t he t r i a l c our t ' s

c onc l us i on. Mont gome r y v. Ma yor of t he Ci t y of

Covi ngt on, 778 S. W. 2d 444, 445 ( Te nn. Ct . App. 1988) ,

pe r m. a pp. de n. ( Te nn. 1989) .

A mot i on t o di s mi s s pur s ua nt t o Rul e 12. 02( 6) f or

f a i l ur e t o s t a t e a cl a i m upon whi c h r e l i e f can be

gr a nt e d i s t he e qui va l e nt of a de mur r e r unde r our

f or me r c ommon l a w pr oc e dur e a nd, t hus , i s a t e s t of t he
1 Empha s i s s uppl i e d .

3

s uf f i c i e nc y of t he l e a di ng pl e a di ng. Humphr i e s v. We s t

End Te r r ace, I nc . , 795 S. W. 2d 128, 130 ( Te nn. Ct . App.

1990) , pe r m. a pp. de n. Suc h a mot i on a dmi t s t he t r ut h

of al l r e l e va nt and ma t e r i a l ave r me nt s cont a i ne d i n t he

c ompl a i nt but a s s e r t s t ha t s uc h f a c t s do not c ons t i t ut e

a caus e of act i on. i d. Howe ve r , a dmi s s i ons of t hi s

na t ur e , ma de s ol e l y i n c onne c t i on wi t h t he mot i on t o

di s mi s s , do not c ons t i t ut e a dmi s s i ons c ha r ge a bl e t o t he

pr opone nt of t he mot i on f or pur pos e s of t he l i t i ga t i on

a s a whol e . Ant hony v. Ti dwe l l , 560 S. W. 2d 908, 910

( Te nn. 1977) . A c ompl a i nt s houl d be di s mi s s e d f or

f a i l ur e t o s t a t e a c l a i m i f i t a ppe a r s be yond doubt

t ha t pl a i nt i f f c a n pr ove no s e t of f a c t s i n s uppor t of

i t s c l a i m tha t woul d e nt i t l e hi m to r e l i e f . Pe mbe r t on,

664 S. W. 2d a t 691.

The pr i nc i pa l que s t i on t o be de t e r mi ne d i n t hi s a ppe a l

i s whe t he r t he ma r r i a ge wa s voi d or voi da bl e . The pa r t i e s

c onc e de t ha t i f voi da bl e t he r i ght t o ha ve i t s e t a s i de a ba t e d

upon t he de a t h of e i t he r pa r t y. 

I n r e s ol vi ng t he i s s ue r a i s e d, t hi s Cour t , i n Woods v.

Woods , 638 S. W. 2d 403 ( Te nn. App. 1983) , a n opi ni on by J udge Le wi s ,

quot e s wi t h a ppr ova l f r om Gi bs on' s Sui t s i n Cha nc e r y ( 5t h e d. ) ,

a s f ol l ows ( a t pa ge 405) :

A ma r r i a ge i s voi d f r om t he be gi nni ng ( 1) whe n

e i t he r pa r t y wa s a l r e a dy lawf ul l y ma r r i e d; or ( 2) ...;

or ( 3) whe n t he pa r t i e s a r e wi t hi n pr ohi bi t e d de gr e e s

of ki ns hi p; or ( 4) whe n, f or a ny ot he r r e a s on, t he

ma r r i a ge wa s pr ohi bi t e d by l a w, a nd i t s c ont i nua nc e i s

i n vi ol a t i on of law. [ Ci t a t i ons omi t t e d. ]

A ma r r i a ge i s voi da bl e f r om t he be gi nni ng ( 1) whe n

e i t he r pa r t y wa s i ns a ne ;

1

 or ( 2) t he c ompl a i na nt wa s

unde r dur e s s ; or ( 3) wa s unde r t he a ge of c ons e nt ; or

( 4) whe n t he c ons e nt wa s obt a i ne d by f or c e , or f r a ud,

a nd wa s gi ve n by mi s t a ke ; or ( 5) whe n t he de f e nda nt wa s
2 Empha s i s i n or i g i n a l opi n i on.

4

i mpot e nt ;

2

 or ( 6) whe n t he woma n wa s pr e gna nt by

a not he r ma n wi t hout t he knowl e dge of t he c ompl a i na nt ;

or ( 7) whe n, f or a ny ot he r r e a s on, t he ma r r i a ge wa s not

bi ndi ng on t he c ompl a i na nt . [ Empha s i s s uppl i e d. ]

2 Gi bs on' s Sui t s i n Cha nc e r y § 1147 not e 10 ( 5t h

e d. 1956) .

As t o t he i ns a ni t y t he or y, we be l i e ve t he Supr e me Cour t

cas e of Br ya nt v. Towns e nd, 188 Te nn. 630, 221 S. W. 2d 949 ( 1949) ,

i s di s pos itive . In tha t c a s e a non c ompos me ntis ma r r i e d a woma n

s ome s i x we e ks be f or e he r de a t h. Hi s he i r s br ought s ui t t o ha ve

t he ma r r i a ge a nnul l e d s o t he wi dow c oul d not i nhe r i t f r om hi s

e s t a t e . The gr ound f or a nnul me nt wa s t ha t he l a c ke d me nt a l

capaci t y t o ent e r i nt o t he ma r r i a ge . I n t ha t cas e t he Supr e me

Cour t he l d t he ma r r i a ge wa s voi da bl e , a nd i n doi ng s o s t a t e d t he

f ol l owi ng ( 188 Te nn. a t 634; 221 S. W. 2d a t 951) :

Speci f i cal l y, i n t he case of Col e v. Col e , 37

Te nn. 57, 70 Am. De c . 275, i t wa s he l d t ha t whe r e a

ma r r i a ge wa s a t t a c ke d on t he gr ound of t he i ns a ni t y of

t he woma n who ha d not be e n a dj udge d non c ompos me nt i s ,

t ha t t he ma r r i a ge wa s voi da bl e a nd not voi d, a nd t ha t

t he ma r r i a ge c oul d be r a t i f i e d by he r i n a s ubs e que nt

l uc i d i nt e r va l . Ha d t he ma r r i a ge be e n voi d a b i ni t i o,

obvi ous l y i t c oul d not ha ve be e n l a t e r r a t i f i e d, s i nc e

i n l e ga l c ont e mpl a t i on, i t ha d ne ve r oc c ur r e d.

We ha ve no s t a t ut e t ha t pr ohi bi t s or a nnul s t he

ma r r i a ge of a n i ns a ne pe r s on. The onl y a ppl i c a bl e

pr ovi s i on of our s t a t ut or y l a w i s t ha t of t he pr e s e nt

ma r r i a ge l i c e ns i ng l a w, whi c h f or bi ds t he Cl e r k t o

i s s ue a l i c e ns e whe n one of t he pa r t i e s i s a known

l una tic or imbe c ile , Se c tion 3, Cha p. 8 1, Public Ac t s

of 1937, but di s r e ga r d of t hi s pr ovi s i on doe s not

r e nde r t he ma r r i a ge voi d but me r e l y voi da bl e a f t e r a n

a ppr opr i a t e pr oc e e di ng. Ke i t h v. Pa c k, 182 Te nn. 420,

423, 187 S. W. 2d 618, 159 A. L. R. 101.
5

I t c a n be s e e n f r om t he f or e goi ng t ha t whe n t he gr ounds

f or a nnul me nt a r e not pr ohi bi t e d by s t a t ut e or by s t r ong publ i c

pol i c y a nd a r e s uc h t ha t t he pa r t i e s ma y s ubs e que nt l y r a t i f y t he

ma r r i a ge , it is voi da bl e , ra t he r tha n voi d.

The Pl a i nt i f f s c ont e nd t ha t Br ya nt is not c ont r olling

be c a us e , a s the y ins i s t in the i r br i e f , the de c i s i on wa s bottome d

upon t he f a c t t ha t " s i nc e Mr . Br ya nt l i ve d s ome s i x ( 6) we e ks

a f t e r hi s ma r r i a ge , a nd hi s he i r s kne w of hi s me nt a l de f e c t pr i or

t o t he ma r r i a ge a nd t ook no a c t i on t o pr ot e c t hi m ( i . e .

a ppoi nt me nt of a gua r di a n) , t he y ha d no gr ounds t o br i ng t he

s ui t . "

We , howe ve r , a gr e e wi t h t he a r gume nt of Mr . He ndr i c ks

t ha t t hi s wa s a n a l t e r na t e r e a s on f or t he Cour t ' s de c i s i on.

As t o t he ma r r i a ge i n j e s t f eat ur e of t he appeal , we

not e t ha t t he c a s e s c i t e d by t he Appe l l a nt s a ppl y t he t r a di t i ona l

c ommon l a w c ont r a c t r ul e t o ma r r i a ge ; vi z , mut ua l c ons e nt by

pa r t i e s i nt e ndi ng t o be bound. Da vi s v. Da vi s, 175 A. 174 

( Conn. 1934) ; Cr ouc h v. Wa r t e nbe r g, 112 S. E. 234 ( W. Va . 1922) ;

Cr ouc h v. Wa r t e nbe r g, 104 S. E. 117 ( W. Va . 1920) .

Te nne s s e e , howe ve r , doe s not f ol l ow t he c ommon- l a w r ul e

a s t o ma r r i a ge c ont r a c t s , a s s hown by Br ya nt v. Towns e nd, s upr a ,

whe r e i n t he Cour t s t a t e d t he f ol l owi ng ( 188 Te nn. a t 633; 221

S. W. 2d a t 950) :
6

The l a w of ma r r i a ge i n Te nne s s e e i s not c ont r ol l e d

by r ul e s of t he c ommon l a w, but i s a ma t t e r of s t a t ut e .

Si nc e 1829, t hi s Cour t ha s f r e que nt l y s o he l d.

" The mor e i mpor t a nt pr ovi s i ons of t he s e a c t s of

As s e mbl y a r e a l mos t e ntir e l y the s a me , e xhi biting a

s e t t l e d pur pos e t o f i x a nd r e gul a t e t he c ont r a c t of

ma r r i a ge s o a s t o r e s t or be de pe nde nt on muni c i pa l l a w

a l one ; e s t a bl i s hi ng a s ys t e m i nt e nde d t o be c ompl e t e i n

i t s e l f , e vi de nc e by t he a t t e nt i on pa i d t o e ve r y

pa r tic ul a r , in f or m a s we ll a s s ubs t a nc e , whi c h the

i mpor t a nc e of s uc h a r e l a t i on, bot h i n a pr i va t e a nd a

publ i c vi e w, s o de s e r ve dl y me r i t e d. He nce, t he s e act s

of As s e mbl y, a s wa s i nt e nde d by t he m, ope r a t e a nd

e f f e c t a c ha nge i n t he f or m a nd s ubs t a nc e of t he

ma r r i a ge c ont r a c t, a nd its s ol emni z a tion, fr om wha t it

wa s a t t he c ommon l a w. * * * we s a y, t ha t t he s e

r e qui r e me nt s , unde r t he s e ci r c ums t a nces , cons t i t ut e

s uc h a body of pr oof , a s t o r e nde r i r r e s t i bl e , i n our

opi ni ons , t he c or r e c t ne s s of t he pos i t i on, t ha t a

ma r r i a ge , t o be va l i d, mus t be a c c or di ng t o t he s e a c t s ,

a nd t ha t t he c ommon l a w i s whol l y s upe r s e de d on t he

s a me s ubj e c t by t he m. " Ba s ha w v. St a t e , 9 Te nn. 177,

183- 184.

" Ac c or di ngl y, s i nc e t he ye a r 1741, a t t he l e a s t ,

t he c ommon l a w mode of c ons t i t ut i ng a l e ga l ma r r i a ge i s

of no va l i di t y he r e . Thi s poi nt wa s e xa mi ne d a t s ome

l e ngt h i n t he c a s e of t he St a t e v. Ba s ha w, 1 Ye r g. Re p.

177, a nd t hi s c onc l us i on a r r i ve d a t a nd s us t a i ne d by

t he c our t . " Gr i s ha m v. St a t e , 10 Te nn. 589, 592.

" We a r e , the r e f or e , s a tis f i e d, a nd hol d, tha t it

wa s t he i nt e nt i on of t he ge ne r a l a s s e mbl y, i n e na c t i ng

t he pr ovi s i ons of t he Code of 1858 upon t he s ubj e c t

unde r c ons i de r a t i on, t o a br oga t e t he c ommon l a w i n

r e l a t i on t o ma r r i a ge s , a nd pr ovi de a ne w a nd e xc l us i ve

ma nne r i n whi c h s uc h c ont r a c t s s houl d be ma de . " Smith

v. Nor t h Me mphi s Sa v. Ba nk, 115 Te nn. 12, 31, 89 S. W.

392, 396.

For t he f or e goi ng r e a s ons t he j udgme nt of t he Tr i a l

Cour t i s a f f i r me d a nd t he c a us e r e ma nde d f or c ol l e c t i on of c os t s

be l ow. Cos t s of a ppe a l a r e a dj udge d a ga i ns t t he Appe l l a nt s a nd

t he i r s ur e t y.

_______________________________
7

Hous t on M. Godda r d, P. J .

CONCUR:

________________________________

Don T. Mc Mur r a y, J .

________________________________

Cha r l e s D. Sus a no, J r ., J .