Source: http://pa.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19730216_0040266.C03.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2016-10-27 01:29:16
Document Index: 737636174

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 32', '§ 1', '§ 2', '§ 4', '§ 123', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 32', '§ 134']

| Bloch v. Bloch
ETHYLE BLOCHv.HAROLD N. BLOCH, APPELLANT
(D.C. Civil No. 31-1971). APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX, CHRISTIANSTED JURISDICTION.
A second question presented is whether the District Court was "clearly erroneous" in its fact-finding that the Blochs had entered into a common law marriage during a visit they had made to Florida in October 1965.*fn1 It may be noted, parenthetically, that the appellant does not challenge the District Court's determination as to incompatibility.
The divorce proceedings developed only one critical fact issue, viz., whether the Blochs, during their Florida visit, had entered into a common law marriage, in consonance with then prevailing Florida law,*fn2 by the exchange of vows. The appellee testified they had exchanged vows and the appellant denied it. The District Court resolved the conflict in the testimony in favor of the appellee. In doing so it stated that it found the appellee's "demeanor as a witness was the more forthright by far," and that "she impressed on the witness stand as being earnest and truthful."
Rule 52(a), F.R.Civ.P., commands that where a trial is had to the court its "findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge of the credibility of the witnesses."
It is settled that Rule 52(a) governs appellate review of a fact-finding of a trial court, and that under it, such a finding, when supported by evidence, can be found to be "clearly erroneous" only when the appellate court, upon review of all the evidence, "'is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.'" McAllister v. United States, 348 U.S. 19, 20, 99 L. Ed. 20, 75 S. Ct. 6 (1954), quoting from United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 92 L. Ed. 746, 68 S. Ct. 525 (1948).
"It is the responsibility of an appellate court to accept the ultimate factual determination of the fact-finder unless that determination either (1) is completely devoid of minimum evidentiary support displaying some hue of credibility, or (2) bears no rational relationship to the supportive evidentiary data. Unless the reviewing court establishes the existence of either of these factors, it may not alter the facts found by the trial court. To hold otherwise would be to permit a substitution by the reviewing court of its finding for that of the trial court, and there is no existing authority for this in the federal judicial system, either by American common law tradition or by rule and statute." Krasnov v. Dinan, 465 F.2d 1298, 1302-1303 (1972).*fn3
It may be noted parenthetically that the District Court found that "apart from the express finding that the parties vowed and consented to be husband and wife in Florida, their cohabitation and holding out as husband and wife in that State would be sufficient to supply the condition of mutual consent" under Florida law,*fn4 irrespective of the brief span of the Florida visit.*fn5
In doing so, it held that while common law marriages may not be validly entered into in the Virgin Islands under Title 16 V.I.C. § 32, effective September 1, 1957,*fn6 they are not included in the category of "Void marriages," Title 16 V.I.C. § 1,*fn7 or "Voidable marriages," Title 16 V.I.C. § 2,*fn8 and accordingly they are cognizable under Title 1 V.I.C. § 4,*fn9 which makes effective in the Virgin Islands the Restatement, Conflicts of Laws § 123 provision that a common law marriage "is valid everywhere" if entered into "in a state in which such a marriage is valid."*fn10
The stated contention disregards the fact that Title 16 V.I.C. § 4*fn11 which concerns marriages entered into by Virgin Islands domiciliaries "in another jurisdiction" declares such marriages "illegal" only if they are "declared illegal by sections 1 and 2 of this title." Sections 1 and 2, respectively, define categories of "Void" and "Voidable" marriages. They do not, as earlier noted, include common law marriages.
Failure of § 4 of Title 16 to include common law marriages between Virgin Islands domiciliaries, "in another jurisdiction," in the category of "illegal" marriages, is of significant dimension in ascertaining the Islands' public policy with respect to such marriages.
The general rule is that in the absence of an express provision to the contrary, a common law marriage, valid in the state in which it is entered into, will be held valid by the courts of the domicile even though such a marriage could not be entered into in the domicile by force of its statutory law. Cf. Loughran v. Loughran, 292 U.S. 216, 223 n. 3, 78 L. Ed. 1219, 54 S. Ct. 684 (1934); see Albina Engine and Machine Works v. O'Leary, 328 F.2d 877 (9 Cir.), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 817, 13 L. Ed. 2d 29, 85 S. Ct. 35 (1964).
The circumstance that under Title 16 V.I.C. § 32 a common law marriage cannot be entered into in the Virgin Islands "does not make it so offensive to local policy" so as to preclude recognition of a common law marriage entered into in a state where such a marriage is valid. See Restatement, Conflict of Laws § 134, comment (b)(1934).*fn12