You have requested an opinion on whether the annulment of a marriage in Alabama would
                  result in the reinstatement of benefits in the following situation. Amy N. B~ was
                  receiving child's insurance benefits on the record of her disabled father, Dewayne
                  B~. Her benefit entitlement ceased when she married Juan C. L~ on January 30, 2001.
                  In August 2002, Amy filed a Complaint for Annulment in the Circuit Court of Winston
                  County, Alabama. The complaint had the following statement:
               
               “The said marriage ceremony was a nullity because the  Defendant committed fraud in
                  inducing the Plaintiff to enter into  the marriage in that the Defendant used a fictitious
                  name. The Plaintiff is  uncertain as to the actual identity of the Defendant.  Through
                  the  course of their marriage, the Plaintiff has learned of at least  two names and
                  social security numbers that the Defendant is known by.”
               
               The court granted Amy a Decree of Annulment on August 14, 2002 stating that “the purported marriage of the Plaintiff  and the Defendant is void ab initio and held for  naught.”
               
               There are no Alabama statutes that enumerate the grounds for an annulment or that
                  provide for a divorce for fraud based on a mistaken identity. We also note that the
                  court's order cited no statutory authority as a legal basis for the annulment of the
                  marriage. However, in Holcombe v. Whitaker, 318 So.2d 289 (Ala. 1975), the Alabama Supreme Court held that when one wrongfully
                  induces another into a marriage, by misrepresenting or concealing facts that render
                  the marriage void, the person deceived is entitled to an action for damages. The Holcombe case involved concealment of a prior existing marriage and the Court further stated
                  that:
               
               “While this is the first case to come before this court  seeking damages for fraudulently
                  inducing one into an illegal or  void marriage, we have long recognized, as actionable,
                  misrepresentations made  with intent to deceive, relied on by and resulting in damages
                  to  the injured party. Thus, we have no hesitancy in joining a number  of states in
                  expressly holding that when one wrongfully induces  another into a marriage, by misrepresenting or concealing  facts which render the marriage void, the person so deceived  is entitled to an action for damages.”
               
               Holcombe at 318 So. 2d 292.
               
               The court's decision provides a basis for our concluding that an annulment is available
                  under Alabama law, specifically where there is a misrepresentation of something that
                  is material to the marital contract.
               
               Another Alabama court decision expressly noted that annulment is the proper remedy
                  for the dissolution of a void marriage and that a trial court may properly annul a
                  marriage on the ground that the marriage was void from the outset. The court also
                  stated that the major difference between a “void marriage” and a “voidable  marriage” is that latter is treated as binding until its nullity is ascertained and declared
                  by competent court, whereas former does not require such judgment because parties
                  could not enter into valid marital relationship. See Broadus  v. Broadus, 361 So. 2d 582 (Ala. 1978).
               
               The Circuit Court of Winston County, Alabama reviewed Amy's complaint and the accompanying
                  evidence alleging fraud and determined that she was entitled to an annulment. It is
                  our opinion that this order is consistent with the case law cited above. The order
                  declared Amy's marriage void ab initio meaning that legally, it never happened. Therefore,
                  it is our opinion that Amy N. B~ is entitled to a reinstatement of her child's insurance
                  benefits back to the point at which SSA stopped payments because her marriage to Juan
                  C. L~ was void. Respectfully,
               
               Mary Ann S~
Chief Counsel
               
               Sharon F. Y~
Assistant Regional Counsel