Family Law

Bigamous Marriage Can't Be Validated by Subsequent Annulment

By Ben Stevens

The South Carolina Supreme Court recently addressed the issue of whether a bigamous marriage can become valid if the prior marriage was annulled.  In Lukich v. Lukich, the Court found that a second marriage was bigamous, despite the annulment of the wife's first marriage, because the annulment was not procured until after the second marriage ceremony.  The Court specifically found that "while an annulment order relates back in most senses, it does not have the ability to validate the bigamous second 'marriage.'"  

Here are the interesting (yet complicated) facts of the Lukich case:

• In 1973, Wife married Husband #1.  They never lived together, but never divorced.
• In 1985, Wife and Husband #2 participated in a marriage ceremony.
• In 2002, Wife filed an action seeking separate support and maintenance and other related relief from Husband #2.  During the course of discovery, Husband #2 learned Wife had never been divorced from Husband #1.
• In 2003, Husband #2 filed an action seeking to declare his marriage to Wife void because it was bigamous.
• After that action was filed, Wife filed a separate suit seeking an annulment of her marriage to Husband #1.  That case was expedited, and an Order granting her an annulment was filed on October 31, 2003.
• Wife then filed a motion to dismiss Husband #2’s bigamy action based on the October 31, 2003, Order granting her an annulment and declaring her first marriage void ab initio. 
• The Family Court held that Wife was barred from defending against Husband #2’s action to void the parties' marriage on the basis of the Order of Annulment.
• Wife appealed, and both the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court affirmed, finding that since there was no marriage when the ceremony between Wife and Husband #2 was performed in 1985, there was nothing to be "revived" by the annulment Order in 2003.

You can read the full text of Lukich v. Lukich by clicking HERE.

Full post as published by SC Family Law Blog on October 17, 2008 (boomark / email).