Court Opinion

ID: 9637418
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:06:48.038003+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:56.111945
License: Public Domain

MILLER, Associate Justice
(dissenting).
At the same time and in the same pleadings, appellant (1) admitted that the Virginia decree had been fraudulently procured and was a nullity and (2) alleged that appellee was a guilty participant in the fraud. Much earlier than that, on the first trial, she had given testimony which convicted her of that fraud. The result was that when the possible participation of appellee in the fraud — which he has consistently denied — was first brought to the attention of the trial judge the latter was fully informed of the fraud and of the fact that appellant had admitted the nullity of the Virginia divorce. The majority opinion says that under such circumstances the trial judge was, nevertheless, required to try the issues of appellee’s participation in the fraud and of laches and estoppel.
I am unable to reach that conclusion. At most, the requirement of the Code1 — that a proceeding to declare the nullity of marriage may not be instituted, by a guiltily participating party — operates to bar the disclosure of the fraud which nullifies the subsequently contracted marriage. The Code does not provide that when a party to such a marriage herself discloses the fraud and admits the nullity, she may at the same time restore its vitality by charging that the other party participated in the fraud. In view of these circumstances, I see no reason for remanding the case and no useful purpose which can be served by doing so. No other finding or conclusion is possible than that fraud was practiced upon the Virginia court. This being true the questions of laches and estoppel, or of participation by appellee in the fraud, are immaterial and whatever findings or conclusions may be made thereon should have no effect upon the decision of the case.
The question presented by appellant for the decision of the trial court was whether she was entitled to a divorce, alimony, maintenance and support. In order to sustain her prayer she was required to prove a valid, existing marriage between herself and appellee. This she failed to do. The trial court denied her prayer for relief, upon her own showing that no valid marriage between herself and appellee existed. No other course was open to it and no other course would have been open to it whatever the result might have been of a trial of *503the issue of appellee’s participation m fraud or of his laches.
The majority opinion misconceives the purpose of the Code provisions. The applicable substantive law is declared by Section 30 — 1012 as follows: “The following marriages are prohibited in the District of Columbia and shall be absolutely void db initio, without being so decreed, and their nullity may be shown in any collateral proceedings, namely: * * * Third. The marriage of any persons either of whom has been previously married and whose previous marriage has not been terminated by death or a decree of divorce.” [Italics supplied] In the present case, the Virginia divorce decree being a nullity, the marriage of appellant and appellee was a nullity, void ab initio, without being so decreed. When the facts came to the attention of the trial judge he had no alternative but to respect the clearly declared substantive law and deny the relief for which appellant prayed. Section 30 — 104,3 upon which appellant relies, declares a mere rule of procedural or adjective law. Its only effect is to prevent a guilty spouse who knowingly entered into an illegal marriage from initiating a proceeding to declare the nullity of that marriage. Its effect may be in some cases to preserve the vitality of a marriage which, if it were subjected to challenge, might be declared void. If so, this results from the fact that the nullity is never brought to the attention of the court. But its effect is not to change the substantive law, or to require the trial judge to disregard admitted fraud and undenied nullity.
Goodloe v. Hawk4 and Saul v. Saul5 do not require a different result. If appellant had consistently maintained, as was done in both those cases, that no fraud had been practiced in procuring the Virginia decree, then there would have been some point in permitting proof of appellee’s participation in the procurement of that decree. If such participation had then been proved, the court would have been justified in refusing to permit him to offer proof of invalidity of the Virginia decree. Under such circumstances, prima facie proof of a valid decree of divorce between appellant and Kirke Kibler would have stood unchallenged. But in view of her admission that she had never lived in Virginia; that her representation to the Virginia court was false — with the inescapable result that the decree was procured by fraud — there was no conflict of evidence to be resolved and no point in determining whether appellee participated in procuring the Virginia decree or had knowledge of its character. In other words, whatever may be the virtue of a plea of laches and estoppel when properly presented, under circumstances contemplated by the law, it cannot cure admitted fraud or restore the vitality of an admittedly invalid decree.
In Goodloe v. Hawk, this court was careful to specify that the Virginia decree there in dispute would be recognized in the District of Columbia “if it is valid under the law of Virginia, i. e., if she was domiciled in and a bona fide resident of Virginia as required by the divorce statute there, and if no fraud was committed on the Virginia court * *."6 And in that case we said, in distinguishing earlier decisions of this court: “Doubtless there are circumstances wherein a particular public policy requires annulment of a marriage without regard to the guilt or innocence of the parties affected and many of the cases rejecting the laches or estoppel doctrines involve such situations. The Simmons and Frey cases may indicate that a prior divorce representing active fraud on the foreign tribunal must, as a matter of public policy, be so regarded. It will be recalled in this connection that as regards the divorce here challenged no fraud was practiced on the Virginia court respecting the appellee’s bona fide residence there nor the fact of her then husband’s desertion.”7 Again, in Saul v. Saul, we carefully eliminated the element of fraud, in the following language : “Finally, there is nothing in the findings or conclusions of the trial court which sustains the charge of fraud. On the contrary, all of their implications are to the opposite effect. That is true, though their conclusion concerning Gardner’s domicil may be at variance with that of the Tennessee court. It follows that the order for the notice, and therefore the notice itself, may have been made and given erroneously, but neither was vitiated by fraud. Something more than mere error must be shown, in attack upon a foreign *504judgment, to deprive it of force and effectiveness.”8
In both Goodloe v. Hawk and. Saul v. Saul, the trial court, in the exercise of its discretion and upon conflicting evidence, found that no fraud had been practiced in procuring the disputed decrees,.because in each case the wife had been a bona fide resident of the state. In each case we upheld the trial court’s exercise of discretion. In each case the application of the doctrine of estoppel against the husband had the effect, merely, of refusing to permit his evidence to go into the balance against the prima facie presumption of validity indulged in favor of the second marriage and the supporting testimony presented by the wife. In the present case, the court, in the exercise of its discretion and upon undisputed evidence of fraud, refused to recognize the Virginia decree. We are asked now, therefore, not to uphold Ihe trial court’s exercise of discretion as we did in our earlier decisions, but to declare that it was abusively exercised; to require that the trial judge shut his eyes to the facts and give full faith and credit to a decree which, upon its proponent’s own showing, was procured by fraud.
But what the situation might have been if appellant had denied fraud and challenged the right of appellee to raise the issue is now immaterial. The trial court was fully advised; its attention was called to our intervening decision, and there was ample basis for its decision. To require it now to rehear the matter upon another theory which would test the good faith of appellee, or his possible participation in the fraud practiced upon the. Virginia court, could not remove from the record appellant’s own testimony and her own admissions establishing fraud. It is to be noted in this connection that while the preamble of the order of the trial court recited the fact of nullity of the marriage of appellant and appellee, it did so because, as it pointed out, the nullity was undenied. And it is to be noted further that the order proper did not declare the nullity of the marriage. The court merely denied the relief prayed by appellant, in her complaint, and dismissed her suit.
The majority opinion oversimplifies the issue of public policy. The primary public policy of the District, which is here involved, in view of the applicable statute which declares the substantive law,9 is the proscription of bigamous marriages. This is the public policy which was effectuated by the decision of the trial court. Section 30 — 104, which declares a limiting rule of adjective law, reveals a secondary public policy, namely, to prevent attack upon an existing second marriage by a person of full capacity who guiltily participated in its consummation; This secondary public policy is the one which we had in mind in Goodloe v. Hawk10 and Saul v. Saul.11 There is no reason to suppose that Congress intended, by enacting Section 30— 104, to destroy or repeal Section 30 — 101. And there is no justification for so widely expanding the application of Section 30— 104 upon the theory that the public policy of the District requires it. On the contrary, public policy requires that it shall be strictly construed as Congress intended it to be construed, merely as a procedural limitation upon Section 30 — 101. If the majority opinion is the law where will the line be drawn? Barefaced fraud, brazen admission of fraud and collusion between guilty parties may be openly alleged and proved without possibility of control; and with resulting emasculation of Section 30— 101. I participated in the decision of Goodloe v. Hawk, but I did so without any intention that the law there stated should apply to such facts as those of the present case.

 D.C.Code (1940) § 30 — 104.

 D.C.Code (1940).

 Ibid.

 72 App.D.C. 287, 113 F.2d 753.

 74 App.D.C. 287, 122 F.2d 64.

 72 App.D.C. 287, 289, 113 F.2d 753, 755.

 72 App.D.C. 287, 291, 292, 113 F.2d 753, 757, 758.

 74 App.D.C. 287, 291, 122 F.2d 64, 68.

 D.C.Code (1940) § 30 — 101.

 72 App.D.C. 287, 113 F.2d 753.

 74 App.D.C. 287, 122 F.2d 64.