QUESTION PRESENTED
This memorandum is in response to your request for a legal opinion on the effect of
a June 2013, Louisiana state court judgment decreeing J~ (J~) January 2013, marriage
to C~ (C~) relatively null. Specifically, you asked whether under Louisiana law a
relatively null marriage is void and legally nonexistent from the beginning, or whether
it is voidable only from the date of the judgment declaring the marriage relatively
null. You also asked if the judgment declaring the marriage relatively null allows
the Social Security Administrative (agency) to reinstate J~ Title II disabled adult
child (DAC) benefits back to the date the agency terminated his DAC benefits in January
2013 due to his marriage, or only from the date in June 2013 that the court issued
the judgment declaring Jonathan’s marriage relatively null.
ANSWER
Based on Louisiana law regarding relatively null marriages and the evidence provided,
the agency could reinstate J~ DAC’s benefits no earlier than June 2013, the date of
the judgment decreeing J~ marriage to C~ relatively null.
BACKGROUND
According to the information that you provided, in August 2012 the agency found J~
entitled to Title II DAC benefits A disabled adult may be entitled to child’s insurance
benefits on the earnings record of an insured person if, among other things, the disabled
adult is 18 years old or older, and has a disability that began before age 22. 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.350(a)(5).
due to intellectual and personality disorders. T~'s aunt, was J~’s representative
payee. J~, born in October, was 30 years old at the time of his January 2013, marriage
to C~. As a result of his marriage to C~, that same month, the agency terminated J~’s
Title II DAC benefits and began to compute his Title XVI benefits as a couple rather
than as an individual.
In order to protect J~’s interests, Ms. J~ filed a Petition for the full Interdiction Full
interdiction is the complete removal of one’s right to care for oneself and one’s
affairs or estate because of mental incapacity. BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 815 (Rev. 7th Ed.
1999). Louisiana law provides that persons subject to mental or physical illness or
disability, whether of a temporary or permanent nature, are subject to interdiction. La.
Civ. Code Ann. art. 362. A court may order the full interdiction of a natural person
of the age of majority, or an emancipated minor, who due to an infirmity, is unable
consistently to make reasoned decisions regarding the care of his person and property,
or to communicate those decisions, and whose interests cannot be protected by less
restrictive means. La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 389.
of J~ (Petition for Interdiction) on January 2013, in a Louisiana state court. In
support of the Petition for Interdiction, Ms. J~ submitted an affidavit from J~’s
treating physician that stated that J~ had a severely limited capacity, could not
live independently, and could not manage his own affairs. On February 2013, a Louisiana
state court issued a Judgment of Interdiction placing J~ under full interdiction and
appointing Ms. J~ as J~’s curator. Under Louisiana law, the court shall appoint a
curator to represent the interdict in juridical acts, and to care for the person or
affairs of the interdict, or any aspect of either. La. Civil Code Ann. art. 392.
On March 2013, Ms. J~, as curator for and on J~'s behalf, filed a Petition for Declaration
of Nullity of Marriage in Louisiana state court naming C~ as the defendant and seeking
to have J~’s marriage to C~ declared null and void. In this petition, Ms. J~ alleged
that the marriage between J~ and C~ was “relatively null” because J~ “was incapable
of discernment at the time of the marriage ceremony.” Further, Ms. J~ alleged that
J~’s limitations rendered him “incapable of entering into marriage with an understanding
of the consequences” of marriage. On April 2013, a deputy sheriff of Livingston Parish,
Louisiana, personally served C~ with notice of the Petition for Declaration of Nullity
of Marriage. On June 2013, the Louisiana state court issued a Judgment Decreeing Marriage
Relatively Null.
ANALYSIS
Requirements for Title II DAC Benefits and Termination Due to
Marriage
Section 202(d)(1) of the Social Security Act (Act) provides that a child (as defined
in section 216(e)) of a fully insured individual is eligible for child’s insurance
benefits if, among other conditions, he is unmarried, and he is under 18 or is 18
years old or older and has a disability that began before age 22. See 42 U.S.C. § 402(d)(1); 20 C.F.R. § 404.350(a)(1)-(5). Of relevance here, an individual’s
entitlement to DAC’s benefits ends with the month in which the individual marries. 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.352(b)(4). However, if the individual’s marriage ends, he may be re-entitled
to DAC’s benefits.
Social Security Ruling (SSR) 84-1 explains that, “[i]f a voidable Although SSR 84-1
uses the terms void and voidable marriages, Louisiana uses the terms “relatively null”
and “absolutely null” when referring to annulled marriages. Thus, throughout this
memorandum we will interchange and use both terms.
marriage is annulled by court action . . . reentitlement to child’s . . . benefits
is ordinarily permitted . . . no earlier than the month in which the marriage is annulled,”
so long as the annulling court does not award or retain jurisdiction to award permanent
alimony. SSR 84-1 Sections 202(d)(1) and (6) and 202(h)(1) (42 U.S.C. 402(d)(1) and
(6) and 402 (h)(1)) Annulment of a Voidable Marriage—Effect on Entitlement or Reentitlement
to Benefits, 1984 WL 49790, *1 (SSA). Thus, for individuals whose entitlement to DAC’s
benefits ended due to a marriage that ended by annulment, the date of reentitlement
to DAC’s benefits depends upon whether the marriage was void from the beginning, and
thus legally nonexistent, or whether it was voidable from the date of the judgment
of annulment under applicable state law. A void marriage is one that has no legal
force or binding effect, and its invalidity may be maintained in any proceedings between
any parties. Black’s Law Dictionary, 987 (Rev. 7th Ed. 1999). A voidable marriage
is valid for all civil purposes until annulled in direct proceedings. Id.
If the agency terminates DAC’s benefits because an individual marries but the marriage
is subsequently annulled, the agency must determine whether the individual is reentitled
to receive DAC’s benefits. SSR 84-1, 1984 WL 49790, *1. If the agency considers the
individual’s marriage void under applicable state law, the agency considers the individual
never to have married, and he will be reentitled to DAC’s benefits as of the date
the agency first terminated his benefits. Id. If, on the other hand, the agency considers the individual’s marriage voidable under
applicable state law and a court annuls the marriage, the individual may be reentitled
to benefits as of the date of the first full month the agency considered him to be
no longer married. Id.; see e.g., 20 C.F.R. § 404.620(a)(1) (a claimant who files an application for benefits before
the first month she meets the requirements for entitlement may receive benefits from
the first month she meets all the requirements).
As stated, although SSR 84-1 uses the terms void and voidable marriages, Louisiana
uses the terms “relatively null” and “absolutely null” when referring to annulled
marriages. The matter at hand concerns the impact of a Louisiana start court’s judgment
decreeing a marriage relatively null, and therefore, we now address Louisiana law.
Louisiana Law Regarding Relatively Null
Marriages
Louisiana law provides that a marriage is “relatively null” when one of the parties
to marry does not freely give their consent. La Civ. Code Ann. art. 95. Louisiana
law further provides that consent is not freely given when consent is given either
under duress or by a person incapable of discernment. La Civ. Code Ann. art. 93. The
party who did not freely give their consent has the right to challenge a relatively
null marriage. La Civ. Code Ann. art. 95. In addition, a relatively null marriage
produces civil effects until it is declared null. La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 97. A “relatively
null” marriage is considered valid until annulled by a judicial decree rendered in
a direct action of nullity brought by a proper party. See Succession of Barth, 178 La. 847, 152 So. 543 (La. 1934). A relatively null marriage under Louisiana
law corresponds to the voidable marriage terminology SSR 84-1 references. The POMS
provide that a voidable marriage is a marriage which is defective and can be adjudged
void (annulled) but which is considered valid unless and until declared void as a
result of a court action on its validity See POMS GN 00305.130 Voidable
Marriage
Louisiana Law Regarding Absolutely Null
Marriages
A marriage is absolutely null when it is contracted without a marriage ceremony, by
procuration, or in violation of an impediment. La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 95. Under Louisiana
law, an “absolutely null” marriage is devoid of legal effect from the moment of its
inception. Burrell v. Burrell, 154 So.2d 103, 106 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1963). An absolutely null marriage under Louisiana
corresponds to the void marriage terminology SSR 84-1 references and is legally nonexistent.
The POMS provide that a void marriage is legally nonexistent from the beginning under
state law. The parties to a void marriage are considered never to have been validly
married. See POMS GN 00305.125 Void
Marriages
The Louisiana State Court Decreed
J~’s
January 2013 Marriage to be Relatively Null, and Therefore, the Marriage Was
Valid Until Annulled on June 20, 2013
You have asked whether under Louisiana law, the June 2013 Judgment rendered J~’s marriage
to C~ void and legally nonexistent from the beginning. The Judgment declared the marriage
between J~ and C~ “relatively null” based on Louisiana Civil Code article 95, which
defines a marriage as relatively null when one of the parties to marry does not freely
give their consent. Here, J~ did not freely consent to the marriage because he was
incapable of discernment at the time of the marriage. In her Petition for Declaration
of Nullity of Marriage, Ms. J~ alleged that J~’s limitations (based on mental deficits,
bipolar disorder, depression, ADHD, and probably mild retardation) rendered him incapable
of entering into marriage with an understanding of the consequences of marriage. Because
Ms. J~ asserted that Jonathan could not freely consent to marriage, Ms. J~, as curator
and on Jonathan’s behalf, was the proper party to challenge the validity of the marriage
between Jonathan and Courtney. See La. Civil Code Ann. art 392. A marriage contracted without one of the party’s free
consent is considered valid until declared null. See La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 97. Thus, we believe that Jonathan’s marriage would be considered
valid until June 20, 2013, when the Louisiana state court entered judgment decreeing
the marriage relatively null.
As noted, a relatively null marriage is considered valid until annulled by a judicial
decree rendered in a direct action of nullity brought by a proper party. See Succession of B~, 152 So. at 851. Thus, Jonathan’s marriage to Courtney was valid until the court
entered judgment on June 20, 2013, declaring the marriage relatively null. La. Civ.
Code Ann. art. 97 (providing that a relatively null marriage produces civil effects The
words “civil effects” are used without restriction and include all civil effects given
to marriage by the law. See Succession of M~, 183 La. 776, 164 So. 797 (La. 1935).
until it is declared null). If a court annuls a voidable marriage, an individual may
be reentitled to child’s benefits beginning no earlier than the month in which the
marriage is annulled. See SSR 84-1. We have addressed the issue of reentitlement to child’s insurance benefits
after annulment of a voidable marriage and reached a similar conclusion. See PR 06315.005 Arkansas A. PR 11-014 Reply- Whether a Decree of Annulment Renders a
Marriage Void or Voidable Under Arkansas Law- NH Charles R. B. at 3 (November 15, 2010). Therefore, the agency cannot reinstate Title II benefits
effective January 2013, the date the agency terminated Jonathan’s benefits due to
his marriage to Courtney. Rather, the agency could reinstate Jonathan’s DAC’s benefits
no earlier than June 2013, the date of the judgment decreeing Jonathan’s marriage
to Courtney relatively null.
Consideration of the Louisiana State Court Judgment Pursuant
to SSR 83-37c
We must also consider whether the June 20, 2013 Louisiana state court Judgment Decreeing
Marriage Relatively Null binds the agency. A state court order is binding on the agency
when: (1) an issue in a claim for Social Security benefits previously has been determined
by a state court of competent jurisdiction; (2) the issue was genuinely contested
before the state court by parties with opposing interests; (3) the issue falls within
the general category of domestic relations law; and (4) the resolution by the state
trial court is consistent with the law enunciated by the highest court in the state. See SSR 83-37c, 1983 WL 31272 (adopting Gray v. Richardson, 474 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1974), as agency policy). As discussed below, the
Louisiana judgment meets all four prongs of SSR 83-37c, and therefore, the judgment
is binding on the agency.
The Louisiana Judgment meets the first prong of the G~ analysis of SSR 83-37c because Louisiana courts have jurisdiction over an action
to annul marriage if one or both parties are domiciled in the state. See LA. CODE CIV. PROC. ANN. art. 10 (A)(6). Jonathan resided in Louisiana at all relevant
times. The Judgment meets the second prong because the evidence shows a return of
service of process by the sheriff’s office in Livingston Parish, Louisiana, indicating
that Courtney, the named defendant, was personally served with notice of the Petition
for a Declaration of Nullity of Marriage. It is unclear whether Courtney appeared
in court to contest Ms. J~’s Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage. However,
Courtney was personally served with notice of the petition and had an opportunity
to contest it, whether she availed herself of the opportunity or not.
The Judgment satisfies the third prong of the G~ analysis of SSR 83-37c because the issue of annulment falls within the general category
of domestic relations law. See La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 94, 95 (noting the general principles of nullity of marriage). The
Judgment satisfies the fourth prong of G~ because the state court judgment finding Jonathan’s marriage relatively null is consistent
with the law enunciated by the highest court of the state. See Succession of B~, 152 So. at 851. (Louisiana Supreme court decision noting that a relatively null
marriage is considered valid until annulled by a judicial decree rendered in a direct
action of nullity brought by a proper party). As such, the agency is bound by and
should accept the June 2013 Louisiana court judgment declaring Jonathan’s marriage
to Courtney relatively null.
CONCLUSION
Based on Louisiana law regarding relatively null marriages and the evidence provided,
the agency could reinstate Jonathan’s DAC’s benefits no earlier than June 2013, the
date of the judgment decreeing Jonathan’s marriage to Courtney relatively null.