Opinion ID: 1134905
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: equitable interest of surviving putative spouse

Text: Respondent Janana McIntyre-Himes in good faith and without complete knowledge entered into a marriage with Victor P. Himes more than 5 years after the purported dissolution which we now determine was invalid. Under the facts of this case she is the surviving putative wife of the deceased Victor P. Himes and Petitioner Frances A. Himes is the surviving legal wife. In overruling Dwyer, however, we do not intend to deny relief to a surviving putative spouse without recognizing the inherent power of the court to balance the equitable interests of a putative wife and a legal wifeboth of whom are innocent parties in this case. This court has previously ruled a putative wife has equitable interests in the common property acquired during an illegal marriage. [73] In Brenchley Elizabeth Brenchley married Richard Brenchley three weeks after he divorced his first wife. The law at that time prohibited remarriage within six months of a divorce. [74] The new wife was not aware her marriage was void because it was entered too soon after her husband's divorce. The Brenchleys lived together as husband and wife for 26 years. During that time, the wife helped run a boarding house, and also worked other jobs to help make payments on properties acquired by her and her husband. [75] All of the property stood in Mr. Brenchley's name at the time of his death. The sons from his first marriage after their father's death sought to claim all of his property. The probate court recognized the invalidity of his marriage to Mrs. Elizabeth Brenchley, but nevertheless awarded one-half of the property to her because all of it had been acquired during her putative marriage to Richard Brenchley. This Court upheld the award on equitable grounds because Mrs. Elizabeth Brenchley was an innocent party and had an equitable interest in one-half of the property acquired during the invalid marriage. [76] The common law equitable principles applied in Brenchley are mirrored in several restatements of the law. The Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 74 (1971) provides that [a] person may be precluded from attacking the validity of a foreign divorce decree if, under the circumstances, it would be inequitable for him to do so. Comment b to the rule states, [s]uch inequity may exist when action has been taken in reliance on the divorce or expectations are based on it.... This comment supports protection by a court of the interests of a surviving putative spouse. The Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 68 (1982), entitled Fraud, Mistake, and Other Grounds for Relief from Default Judgment, states: Subject to the limitations stated in § 74, a judgment by default may be avoided if the judgment: ... (2) Was based on a claim that the party obtaining the judgment knew to be fraudulent[.] This quoted section is applicable to the facts of this case. Mr. Himes obtained a default dissolution decree by fraudulently stating he had made efforts to, but could not, locate his wife. This fraudulent claim is a ground for attacking the dissolution decree under §§ 68 and 74 of the Restatement. We adopt Restatement (Second) of Judgments §§ 68 and 74 under the facts of this case. Subsection (3) of § 74 presents the determinative rule for this case: When a trial court finds cause to vacate a decree of divorce or dissolution, the court must determine whether an interest of reliance upon that decree, such as a surviving putative spouse's interest, should be protected. If the putative spouse has valid interests, such as rights to property jointly accumulated during the putative marriage, then the trial court must shape and balance the relief to protect the interests of both the putative spouse and the legal spouse. Because there were minimal assets in Mr. Himes' estate, there is no need to remand for a factual inquiry into Respondent MacIntyre-Himes' equitable property interests. The record mentions no assets which were jointly acquired by decedent and Respondent MacIntyre-Himes during their 13-month marriage. Mr. Hime's enrollment in the United States Navy survivor benefit plan occurred prior to his marriage to Respondent MacIntyre-Himes. Because the only asset in the estate is this benefit plan, and because Respondent MacIntyre-Himes has demonstrated no equitable interest in the benefit plan payments, Petitioner Francis A. Himes, as the surviving legal wife of Victor P. Himes, is entitled under federal law to the Navy survivor benefit plan payments.