QUESTION
You asked whether a valid marital relationship existed between Robert, the deceased
wage earner (DWE) and Rosie (Claimant) for purposes of determining Claimant’s entitlement
to widow’s insurance benefits under the Social Security Act (the Act) where DWE was
comatose at the time of the alleged marriage.
SHORT ANSWER
Under California law, the purported marriage between DWE and Claimant was void ab initio—from its inception—and never constituted a valid marriage. California law treats
Claimant and DWE as if they were never married and, because the Act looks to state
law to determine the validity of the marriage, Claimant is not entitled to receive
widow’s benefits.
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
We obtained these facts from a March 7, 2012 investigative report completed by the
State of California and the exhibits thereto, as well as documents and information
received from the field office in Whittier, California. The State of California investigated
Claimant for grand theft, embezzlement, failure to disclose a material fact, and welfare
fraud in connection with her collection of Medi-Cal funds.
In October 2009, DWE had a brain hemorrhage. On November 29, 2009, physicians admitted
him to a hospital in a comatose state. On February 26, 2010, physicians transferred
him to a convalescent hospital, where he remained in a comatose state until his death
on October 27, 2012.
Claimant alleges that she married DWE on April 30, 2010 in Los Angeles County, California. Medical
records show that DWE was in a comatose state in the days immediately preceding and
following the purported wedding: on April 25, 2010, DWE’s physician described him
as “unresponsive”; on April 29, 2010, DWE’s physician indicated that he was in a “vegetative
state”; on May 9, 2010, DWE’s physician noted that he was “non-verbal” and on feeding
tubes; and on May 10, 2010, DWE’s physician described him as “comatose.”
On or about April 29, 2010, Claimant applied for a license and certificate of marriage
from the County Clerk for the County of Los Angeles. The application stated that Claimant
and DWE lived together in Pico Rivera, California, and listed the wedding date as
April 30, 2010.
DWE’s signature does not appear on the application. Instead, Claimant completed an
Affidavit of Inability to Appear stating that DWE was hospitalized and could not physically
appear before the county clerk to apply for a marriage certificate. Claimant, Sandy
—the minister who attempted to solemnize the purported wedding—and Margaret, a witness
to the purported wedding ceremony, signed the affidavit. DWE’s signature does not
appear on the affidavit.
The county clerk issued a marriage certificate indicating that DWE and Claimant married
on April 30, 2010. Claimant, the minister, Margaret, and the county clerk signed the
marriage certificate. DWE did not sign the marriage certificate. DWE’s typewritten
name appears on the signature line of the marriage certificate in lieu of his written
signature.
The county clerk accepted the marriage certificate for registration on May 12, 2010
and filed it on July 14, 2010.
Claimant’s application for widow’s benefits and lump sum death benefits are currently
pending before the agency. The Whittier field office advised us that the Office of
the Inspector General asked for assistance in investigating potential representative
payee abuse. The Whittier field office spoke with Claimant concerning the funds she
received as DWE’s representative payee. We understand that Claimant told the Whittier
field office that she used the funds to pay for household expenses. Payment of household
expenses may not constitute a misuse of funds where the representative payee and the
deceased wage earner are validly married. For this reason, the Whittier office suspended
its inquiry into the representative payee issue pending a determination regarding
the validity of the marriage.
ANALYSIS
Federal Law
The Social Security Act (the Act) requires that a claimant seeking widow’s benefits
prove the existence of a valid marriage to the deceased wage earner. See Act §§ 202 & 216(h)(1)(A), 42 U.S.C. §§ 402 & 416(h)(1)(A); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.335, 404.344, 404.345 (2012). The Act looks to the law of the state
where the deceased wage earner lived at the time of his death to determine whether
a Claimant’s marriage is valid. See Act § 216(h)(1)(A)(i); 20 C.F.R. § 404.435. Here, DWE lived in California at the
time of his death. Accordingly, California law governs the validity of his marriage
to Claimant.
The Marriage Is Voidable Under California Law
There are five statutory requirements for effectuating a valid marriage in California:
the parties must consent to the marriage, the parties must obtain a valid marriage
certificate, the marriage must be solemnized, and the person solemnizing the marriage
and at least one witness must sign the marriage certificate, and the marriage certificate
must be filed with the county clerk. Cal. Fam. Code §§ 300, 306, 420.
California courts expressly hold that the failure to comply with statutory licensing,
certification, or solemnization requirements render a marriage void. In re Estate of D~, 97 Cal. App. 4th 92, 102 (Cal. App. 2002) (holding that California Family Code requirements
are mandatory); see also Burnham v. Cal. Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 208 Cal. App. 4th 1576, 1584–85 (Cal. App. 2012) (failure to solemnize wedding rendered
it void); In re Estate of T~, No. A123071, 2009 WL 3470401, * 6 (Cal. App. Oct. 9, 2009) (citing D~, 97 Cal. App. 4th at 92; Lockyer v. San. Fran., 33 Cal. 4th 1055, 1116 (Cal. 2004)) (“Our courts have determined that failure to
comply with the requirements of sections 300 and 306 renders a marriage void.”).
A “void” marriage is “legally nonexistent from the beginning.” Program Operations
Manual System (POMS) GN 00305.125(A); see also L~, 33 Cal. 4th at 1114. Thus, “parties to a void marriage are considered never to have
been husband and wife,” with or without a judicial decree. POMS GN 00305.125(A). As a result, a claimant whose marriage to a deceased wage earner was void is not entitled
to receive benefits under the Act. See Act §§ 202 & 216(h)(1)(A), 42 U.S.C. §§ 402 & 416(h)(1)(A); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.335, 404.344, 404.345. Here, the purported marriage between DWE
and Claimant was void ab initio—from its inception—both because the marriage certificate was invalid and because
the marriage was not solemnized.
The purported marriage between DWE and Claimant is void because DWE never personally
appeared before the county clerk to apply for the marriage certificate. California
Family Code section 359(a) requires that both applicants seeking a marriage certificate
personally appear before the county clerk. Section 426 provides an exception to the
personal appearance requirement of section 359(a) when one of the applicants alleges
that he is physically unable to appear. Section 426 has three requirements: (1) the
person solemnizing the marriage must present an affidavit to the county clerk explaining
why the absent applicant cannot personally appear; (2) the person solemnizing the
marriage and both applicants must sign the affidavit under penalty of perjury; and
(3) a notary must notarize the absent applicant’s signature.
Claimant appears to have presented an affidavit to the county clerk pursuant to section
426 alleging that DWE was physically unable to appear due to hospitalization. However,
contrary to the requirements of section 426(b) and (c), DWE’s signature is not on
the affidavit. Accordingly, DWE neither signed the affidavit subject to the penalty
of perjury nor before a notary, in violation of the California Family Code. See Cal. Fam. Code §§ 354, 359, 426. For this reason alone, the marriage certificate between
DWE and Claimant was invalid, and the purported marriage between DWE and Claimant
was void from its inception. See, e.g., In re Estate of D~, 97 Cal. App. 4th at 102 (California Family Code licensing and certification requirements
are mandatory and strictly enforced).
The purported marriage between DWE and Claimant is also void because it was not solemnized. See Cal. Cal. Fam. Code §§ 300, 420(a). Section 420(a) provides, in pertinent part, “the
parties shall declare, in the physical presence of the person solemnizing the marriage
. . . that they take each other as husband and wife.” As the B~ court explained, solemnization is required to validate a marriage because it is the
act of saying the words, “I do” that finalizes the marriage contract. B~, 208 Cal. App. 4th at 1584–85 (“Simply put . . . it is the point in the process at
which the parties can no longer change their minds about their decision to form a
union.”).
Here, DWE could not have accepted the marriage vows before the minister because DWE
was comatose at the time of the purported wedding ceremony. Indeed, the medical records
show that in the days prior to and following the purported wedding ceremony, DWE was
“unresponsive,” “non-verbal,” “comatose,” and in a “vegetative state.” These records
establish that the DWE was physically and mentally incapable of accepting wedding
vows on April 30, 2010. California courts look to this sort of evidence to determine
mental capacity at the time of solemnization. See, e.g., Vitale v. Vitale, 147 Cal. App. 2d 665, 667 (Cal. App. 1957) (citing In re Estate of P~, 195 Cal. 699, 703 (Cal. 1925)) (“While it is . . . mental condition on [the day
of the wedding ceremony] that is in issue, that condition may be determined from his
condition prior and subsequent to the day.”). Because DWE could not have knowingly
participated in the April 30, 2010 wedding ceremony, the solemnization requirement
was not met. As a result, the purported marriage was void ab initio under California law, and the agency should treat Claimant and DWE as if they were
never married. See, e.g., In re Estate of D~, 97 Cal. App. 4th at 102; POMS GN
00305.125(A).
The Marriage Is Also Voidable Under California Law
Additional defects also render the marriage voidable under California law. Unlike
a void marriage—which is “legally non-existent” from its inception, regardless of
whether or not a court deems it so—a voidable marriage is valid until a court enters
a nullifying decree. See, e.g., In re Marriage of S~, 200 Cal. App. 4th 800, 806–07 (Ct. App. 2011). Agency policy directs payments of
benefits unless or until a court deems a marriage voidable. POMS GN 00305.130.
California courts would not find that Claimant and DWE were validly married at the
time DWE died. Under California Family Code section 2210, a court may deem a marriage
“voidable” where a party to the marriage: (1) lacked capacity to consent to the marriage;
(2) had a previous spouse who was absent and/or not known to be alive; (3) was of
unsound mind; (4) obtained the other party’s consent by fraud or force; and/or (4)
was physically incapable of entering into the marriage.
California courts would likely find the marriage between Claimant and DWE voidable
because DWE lacked the capacity to consent to the marriage, was of unsound mind, and
was physically incapable of entering into the marriage. See, e.g., People v. Ramirez, Case No. B227672, 2012 WL 280563, *3 (Cal. App. Jan. 31, 2012). For example, the
R~ court found that the fact that the alleged wife was not “‘at all’” lucid and suffered
from dementia established that she lacked the capacity to consent to the alleged marriage
and deemed the marriage voidable. R~, 2012 WL 280563, *3; see also Vitale v. Vitale, 147 Cal. App. 2d 665, 667 (1957) (voiding marriage because party’s mental illness
rendered it “impossible for him to have appreciated the solemnity of the marriage
vows, as his judgment would have been too impaired for him to understand the nature,
obligations, and responsibilities of marriage.”). Because the marriage is both void
and invalid for these additional reasons, the agency need not rely on the marriage
for entitlement purposes.
CONCLUSION
Because the evidence shows that DWE was in a comatose state both before and after
the alleged wedding ceremony on April 30, 2010, the marriage was void ab initio. In particular, DWE could not and did not personally appear before the county clerk
to apply for a marriage license and certificate, sign the affidavit of inability to
appear before a notary, or accept the wedding vows to effectuate the solemnization
of the purported marriage. As a result of these deficiencies, DWE and Claimant were
never validly married and Claimant is not entitled to widow’s benefits under the Act. Moreover,
the defects in the marriage stemming from DWE’s physical and mental incapacitation
provide further support for the conclusion that the marriage is invalid. As mentioned
above, the validity of the marriage may have implications for the pending representative
payee misuse inquiry.