Source: https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/1506210023
Timestamp: 2018-04-25 23:41:53
Document Index: 37952514

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 402', '§ 404', '§ 416', '§ 404', '§ 416', '§ 404', '§ 404', 'art. 26', '§ 402', '§ 404', '§ 402', '§ 404', '§404']

SSA - POMS: PR 06210.023 - Maryland - 09/09/2008
PR 06210.023 Maryland
A. PR 06-360 Validity of Laotian Divorce - REPLY
The validity in the United States of a divorce decree from a foreign country is governed by the considerations of comity whereby one court defers to the jurisdiction of another court in a case which both courts would have the right to handle the case. Under comity a divorce decree granted in a foreign country by a court having jurisdiction will generally be given full force and effect in this country. A divorce in Laos is presumed valid in Maryland but may be found invalid without adequate documentation of the divorce. The Agency may challenge the validity of the divorce in Laos if sufficient documentation of the divorce is not provided or if neither party was a good faith domiciliary in Laos at the time of the divorce. However, equitable principles may lead Maryland to recognize the divorce. In order to establish an equitable divorce, the claimant would need to provide a ruling from a Maryland court of competent jurisdiction.
You have asked for an opinion as to the validity of a Laotian divorce for purposes of processing claims for divorced wife's benefits.
A divorce that purportedly took place in Laos would likely not be recognized as valid without official documentation and proof of at least one party's domicile in Laos at the time of the divorce but may be recognized under equitable principles of law in Maryland. To establish the latter, we believe it would be necessary to obtain a ruling from a Maryland court of competent jurisdiction.
On May 23, 2006, claimant, Kaysone S~, filed an auxiliary claim for divorced wife's benefits on the earnings record of Thao B~. For proof of marriage, Ms. S~ provided a page from her family registry that indicates the marriage took place on June 26, 1967, in Paris, France. The page was signed by the town mayor and dated March 20, 1973. For proof of divorce, claimant submitted a notarized statement from Mr. B~ in which he stated he and Ms. S~ were divorced on June 25, 1978, through a verbal agreement with no documents or statements. Claimant also gave a statement that the divorce took place in her family home on that date and was witnessed by both families and the head of the village as a government official.
Mr. B~ filed for disability benefits, naming his current wife, but not the claimant, on the application. He claimed he did not list Ms. S~ because they were divorced and he did not see a need to include her.
The claimant is entitled to divorced wife's benefits based on the account of her former husband, Thao B~ if: (1) Mr. B~ is entitled to old-age or disability benefits; (2) Ms. S~ is the wage earner's divorced wife; (3) she was validly married to the wage earner; (4) she was married to the wage earner for at least ten years immediately before she divorced the wage earner; (5) she applies; (6) she is not married; (7) she is 62 or older; (8) she is not entitled to an old-age or disability benefits based on a primary insurance amount that is equal to or larger than the full wife's or husband's benefit; and (9) she has been divorced from the wage earner for a least two years. See 42 U.S.C.A. § 402(b) and 416(d); 20 C.F.R. § 404.331 (2006).
Mr. B~, born on June 13, 1942, is 64 years old. He filed an application for disability benefits on September 13, 2005. The marriage in question lasted more than 10 years, from June 26, 1967 through at least June 25, 1978, depending on the validity of the divorce in question. Ms. S~ has applied for divorced wife's benefits. She is also at least 62 years old, born on July 1, 1943. She has no social security number and is entitled to no benefits based on her own primary insurance amount. The divorce, if valid, has been effective for more than 2 years. For the purposes of this memo, we will assume that the original marriage was valid and that Ms. S~ did not remarry. Thus, the sole issue here is whether claimant is the wage earner's "divorced wife" for the purposes of obtaining divorced wife's benefits on his account. See 42 U.S.C.A. § 416(d)(1); 20 C.F.R. § 404.331(a). For the reasons discussed below, we believe that the claimant could not be considered Thao B~'s "divorced wife" for the purposes of obtaining divorced wife's benefits on his account because there is inadequate documentation of any divorce.
The Social Security Act and regulations provide that, in determining family status, the claimant is the wife of the wage earner if the courts of the State in which the wage earner is domiciled at the time the claimant files the application would find that the claimant and the wage earner are married. See 42 U.S.C.A. § 416(h)(1)(A)(i); 20 C.F.R. § 404.345. This requirement applies where the marital status at issue is that of the claimant and the wage earner.
There is no information in the material we received describing in which state the wage earner was living at the time of the claimant's application for wife's benefits. However, based on his May 10, 2002 statement, Mr. B~ was a resident of Maryland at that time. If the wage earner in this case was living in Maryland at the time of the claimant's application for spousal benefits, it is the law of Maryland that should be applied to determine whether or not claimant and the wage earner are to be considered validly married. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.345. Without further information indicating Mr. B~ was a resident of a different state at the time Ms. S~ filed her claim, this opinion will consider the laws of Maryland, his state of residence as of 2002.
A divorce in Laos is presumed valid in Maryland but may be found invalid without adequate documentation of the divorce.
As Laos is not within the United States, a Laotian divorce is not entitled to recognition in the United States by virtue of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution (Art. IV, Sec. I). Instead, its recognition is governed by considerations of comity whereby one court defers to the jurisdiction of another court in a case in which both courts would have the right to handle the case. Under comity, a valid divorce decree granted in a foreign country by a court having jurisdiction will generally be given full force and effect in this country. A foreign decree is presumed valid until some evidence to the contrary is presented. Wolff v. Wolff, 40 Md.App.168, 178 (Ct. of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1978). However, courts may deny even prima facie validity to the judgments of foreign countries for policy reasons, despite whatever allegations of jurisdiction may appear on the face of such foreign judgments. See Montemurro v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 409 F.2d 832, 832 (9th Cir. 1969).
Laotian law in 1978 allowed divorce by court judgment or by a procedure in front of a local official known as a Tasseng. Letter from Constance A. J~, Senior Legal Research Analyst, Library of Congress, to David C~, Intern, Social Security Administration (July 18, 2006) (on file with the author). Both parties claim that the divorce in question was performed in front of a Tasseng. A divorce by local official required that the parties inform the Tasseng of their intent in front of four witnesses of legal age. Modified Civil and Commercial Code art. 26 (1973) (Laos). The Tasseng was required to give counseling time, not to exceed three months, to the couple to reconsider their intent. Id. If the parties still wished to pursue their divorce, the Tasseng completed their divorce papers. Id. Those papers were signed by the couple, witnesses, and sealed by the Tasseng. Id. The Tasseng forwarded the papers to the court to be kept as records and certified copies were made for each of the two parties.
No copy of the divorce papers (e.g., a decree, judgment, or order) has been submitted in this case. Mr. B~ and Ms. S~ have both given statements attesting to the procedure, but the official documentation has not been provided. Given the turmoil in Laos since 1978, the official documents, sent to the court to be kept as records, are likely unavailable. However, the certified copies that were made for the two parties should be available. Ms. S~ has provided a page from her family registry containing the marriage certificate, suggesting that the registry remains intact. It should contain the certified copy of the divorce papers. Without the official record of divorce, Maryland is likely to find the divorce was invalid in Laos.
Maryland may recognize the divorce in this case, even if invalid, under equitable principles.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) may challenge the validity of the divorce in Laos if sufficient documentation of the divorce is not provided or if neither party was a good faith domiciliary in Laos at the time of the divorce; however, equitable principles may lead Maryland to recognize the divorce. See Memorandum, PR 00-074 Marital Status of Zora J. S~, May 15, 2000. The majority of states will not recognize a foreign divorce if the divorce was not valid in the nation awarding it or if neither of the spouses was a good faith domiciliary of the foreign nation at the time the divorce decree was rendered. See Annotation, Domestic Recognition of Divorce Decree in a Foreign Country and Attacked for Lack of Domicile or Jurisdiction of Parties, 13 A.L.R. 3d 1419 (1967). The divorce in this case is invalid if the divorce papers, required by Laotian divorce law, were not completed. Moreover, it is unclear, based on the information in the file, whether the claimant or Mr. B~ was a good faith domiciliary of Laos at the time of the divorce. Although Ms. S~ is not contesting the divorce, the SSA may independently challenge the validity of a questionable divorce. See Slessinger v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 835 F.2d 937 (1st Cir. 1987); SSR 88-15c.
In Slessinger, the divorce was not recognized because it occurred less than two months prior to the wife's claim for benefits, suggesting the divorce was solely for the purpose of obtaining benefits. Moreover, there was no indication that either party remarried in reliance upon the divorce. The facts in this case raise equitable considerations that are more favorable toward recognition of the divorce than those in Slessinger. Here, the divorce is 28 years removed from the benefits claim, there is no evidence of secondary purposes, and Mr. B~ remarried in reliance upon the divorce. Thus, although the divorce in Laos may be invalid, Maryland is more likely to recognize the divorce due to equitable principles of good faith and reliance.
Maryland would find the Laotian divorce valid only if official divorce documentation was provided and if at least one party was a good faith domiciliary in Laos at the time of the divorce. Maryland is likely to find the divorce invalid in this case because no copies of the divorce papers have been submitted and because it is unclear whether Ms. S~ or Mr. B~ were good faith domiciliaries of Laos at the time of the divorce.
If the divorce papers are submitted and at least one party was a good faith domiciliary of Laos, or if Maryland recognizes the divorce without that information, Ms. S~ will be eligible for divorced wife's benefits. See 42 U.S.C.A. § 402(b) and 416(d); 20 C.F.R. § 404.331. Maryland may recognize the divorce, even if invalid, due to equitable principles. We believe that in order to establish an equitable divorce, Ms. S~ should provide an order from a court of competent jurisdiction. Depending on Ms. S~'s reaction to the initial determination on her application for divorced wife's benefits, additional development may be necessary. For example, the field office might request a copy of a court order that establishes an equitable divorce between Ms. S~ and Mr. B~.
If the divorce is invalid and Maryland refuses to recognize it, however, Ms. S~ may be eligible for wife's benefits as she would still be married to Mr. B~. See 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 402(b) and 416(b); 20 C.F.R. § 404.330. If Ms. S~ is entitled to wife's benefits, Mr. B~'s current wife may still be entitled to benefits as a deemed spouse or a putative spouse. Since Mr. B~ thought he was divorced when he married his current wife, she likely believed the same and would probably qualify for wife's benefits as a deemed spouse. See 20 C.F.R. §404.346.
B. PR 00-074 Marital Status of Zora Jones S~
You have requested our opinion as to whether Zora Jones S~ (Zora) can be considered "not married" based on a Haitian divorce and thus entitled to Title II benefits as the surviving divorced spouse of the deceased number holder (NH), Andre M. S~. For the reasons stated below, we believe Zora is "not married" for purposes of entitlement to Title II benefits as the surviving divorced spouse of the deceased NH.
While SSA's challenge of an invalid divorce was upheld in Slessinger, the instant case is distinguishable. In Slessinger, there was no indication that either of the parties to the invalid divorce had remarried in reliance on that divorce; here, Mr. S~ has remarried. Further, the time frame was very different in Slessinger. In that case, the claimant applied for mother's insurance benefits on the account of her first husband, who died on November 29, 1981. She married her second husband on October 22, 1983, and divorced nine months later on August 6, 1984. She applied for benefits on September 24, 1984. This time frame suggests the claimant obtained a divorce from her second husband solely for the purpose of obtaining benefits on the account of her first husband. Here, Zora and Mr. S~ obtained their invalid divorce more than 24 years before she applied for benefits. Thus, we believe the circumstances in the instant case raise equitable considerations that are more favorable toward a recognition that the claimant is "not married" than the facts in Slessinger. See Memorandum, Validity of divorce - Dominican Republic; Estoppel to deny Divorce Ralph R. D~, ~, RCC X (G~) to AAC/MOS, SSA, December 17, 1999 (copy attached).
http://policy.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/1506210023
PR 06210.023 - Maryland - 09/09/2008