TN 2 (05-19)

PR 06305.008 Connecticut

A. CPM 19-063 Validity of Annulment from the Tribunal Archdiocese of Hartford in Determining Entitlement to Divorced Spouse’s Benefits

Date: March 14, 2019

1. Syllabus

The number holder (NH) was domiciled in Connecticut when the claimant applied for benefits; therefore, we look to the Connecticut laws regarding the dissolution of the marriage. Under the Connecticut law, a marriage is dissolved only by the death of one of the parties or a decree of annulment or dissolution of the marriage by a court of competent jurisdiction. The Tribunal Archdiocese of Hartford determined that the claimant and the NH’s marriage was null in the eyes of the church. The annulment granted by the Tribunal Archdiocese of Hartford did not annul the claimant’s marriage to the NH under Connecticut law. We do not have sufficient evidence to determine whether the claimant and the NH ever obtained a divorce or a legal annulment from the State of Connecticut. In the absence of an annulment or dissolution decree from the Connecticut Superior Court, we do not believe the claimant can establish that her marriage to the NH was validly annulled, or that she is the divorced spouse of the NH.

2. Opinion

Question Presented

You asked us two questions. First, you asked whether the annulment granted by the Tribunal Archdiocese of Hartford was valid under the State laws of Connecticut. Second, you asked whether J~ (the claimant) could be found entitled to divorced spouse’s benefits on the record of the number holder (NH), N~.

Short Answers

The annulment granted by the Tribunal Archdiocese of Hartford did not annul the claimant’s marriage to the NH under Connecticut law.

Since the claimant has not submitted a valid, final divorce decree, SSA cannot conclude that she is a divorced spouse of the NH, for the purposes of entitlement to divorced spouse’s benefits.

Background

On November 1960, the NH and the claimant were married in Puerto Rico. We are assuming that this was a valid marriage under the laws of Puerto Rico.

In a letter dated August 1985, the Tribunal Archdiocese of Hartford informed the claimant that the Tribunal completed the first stage of the annulment process initiated by the NH. The Tribunal determined that the claimant and the NH’s marriage was null in the eyes of the church. The letter reminded the claimant that this decision had no civil effects and was entirely church-related. The claimant was informed that the decision needed to be confirmed by a second church tribunal.

By a letter dated September 1985, this second church tribunal, the Court of Appeals for the Province of Hartford, informed the claimant that it affirmed the Tribunal’s decision and that her marriage to the NH was found null under Cannon Law as of September 13, 1985.

The NH stated that he married M~ on November 1985, in Hartford, Connecticut. He has been receiving retirement benefits since September 2002.

Applicable Law

A. Federal Law

As pertinent here, the Social Security Act (the Act) provides for the payment of benefits to the divorced wife of an individual entitled to old-age or disability insurance benefits if the divorced wife filed an application, attained age 62, is not married, is not otherwise entitled to old-age or disability benefits that are equal to or larger than the insured’s full benefit, and was divorced from the insured for at least two years. 42 U.S.C. § 402(b); 20 C.F.R. § 404.331(b)-(f); POMS RS 00202.005.B.1.

The Act provides that a claimant is a “divorced wife” of the insured individual if she was married to him for a period of 10 years immediately before the divorce, and if the marriage was valid under State law. 42 U.S.C. § 416(d)(1); 20 C.F.R. § 404.331(a); POMS RS 00202.005.A. Proof of divorce is always required when determining entitlement to divorced spouse’s benefits. POMS RS 00202.050.A.4, RS 00202.075.A.1, GN 00305.140.A.1. Generally, a divorce is presumed valid if at least one party resides in the jurisdiction of the granting court at the time of the divorce. POMS GN 00305.170.A.1.

To determine marital status, SSA considers the laws of the state under which the insured individual is domiciled at the time the claimant files her application. 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(1)(A)(i); 20 C.F.R. § 404.345. Because SSA determined that the NH was domiciled in Connecticut when the claimant applied for benefits, Connecticut’s laws regarding the dissolution of marriage control here.

B. State Law

Under Connecticut law, a marriage is dissolved only by the death of one of the parties or a decree of annulment or dissolution of the marriage by a court of competent jurisdiction. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-40(a) (1978). The Superior Court has exclusive jurisdiction over all complaints seeking a decree of annulment, dissolution of a marriage, or legal separation. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-42 (1979). An annulment will be granted if the marriage is void or voidable under the laws of the state in which the marriage was performed or under Connecticut’s laws. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-40(b) (1978). Additionally, the court has recognized “that an annulment and a dissolution of marriage differ fundamentally. An annulment renders the marriage void ab initio (void from the beginning) while a dissolution is based upon a valid marriage which terminates as of the date of the judgment of dissolution.” Durham v. Miceli, 15 Conn. App. 96, 96 (1988). Annulments are not favored under Connecticut law. Id. There is a very strong presumption in Connecticut law in favor of valid marriages. Carabetta v. Carabetta, 182 Conn. 344, 352-53 (1980). A party seeking to annul a marriage is seeking an adjudication of the validity and status of a marriage on the theory that “the marriage is void ab initio.” Mazzei v. Cantales, 142 Conn. 173, 178 (1955). Accordingly, a petition for the annulment of a marriage … requires of the court hearing it … great caution and demands clear proof.” Davis v. Davis, 119 Conn. 194, 203 (1934). “The courts have frequently stated that to decree annulment the evidence must be clear and convincing.” Trotta v. Trotta, 5 Conn. Supp. 218, 223 (1937).

Discussion

We do not have sufficient evidence to determine whether the claimant and the NH ever obtained a divorce or a legal annulment from the State of Connecticut. The claimant presented a certificate of marriage from Puerto Rico showing that she married the NH on November 1960. She also provided annulment documentation from the Tribunal Archdiocese of Hartford and the Court of Appeals for the Province of Hartford, both institutions of the Catholic Church. In addition, the NH provided a statement that the marriage was annulled on September 1985, in Hartford, Connecticut—the date of annulment provided in the September 1985 letter issued by the reviewing church tribunal.

Under Connecticut law, only the Superior Court has jurisdiction to annul or dissolve a marriage. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-42 (1979). Although the NH stated that an annulment was obtained in Connecticut, the only evidence she submitted was issued by a tribunal of the Catholic Church.[1] It appears that SSA attempted to determine if the State recognized an annulment in this case, but the Connecticut Department of Public Health Vital Records indicated that the State did not keep annulment records—instead “the court would have such record.” To our knowledge, the claimant has not received or submitted an annulment decree issued by the Connecticut Superior Court. Thus, we cannot conclude that the claimant’s alleged annulment is valid under Connecticut law.[1[1] ]

For substantially the same reason, we are unable to conclude that the claimant is the NH’s divorced spouse. Proof of divorce is always required when determining entitlement to divorced spouse’s benefits. POMS RS 00202.050.A.4. To our knowledge, the claimant has not submitted evidence of a final divorce decree.

Conclusion

In the absence of an annulment or dissolution decree from the Connecticut Superior Court, we do not believe the claimant can establish that her marriage to the NH was validly annulled, or that she is the divorced spouse of the NH


Footnotes:

[1]

Notably, the August 30, 1985 notice made clear that the tribunal’s decision had “no civil effects,” but “rather, [was] entirely Church related.” The notice also advised the claimant that the annulment, if ratified, would simply “offer . . . the possibility of entering into another marriage in the Catholic Church . . . if there are no other impediments.” (emphasis added). See also Hames v. Hames, 163 Conn. 588, 599 (1972) (finding marriage voidable where State law solemnization requirements were not satisfied, despite compliance with canonical law).


To Link to this section - Use this URL:
http://policy.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/1506305008
PR 06305.008 - Connecticut - 05/29/2019
Batch run: 05/29/2019
Rev:05/29/2019