QUESTION PRESENTED
You have asked us to determine the marital status of a marriage, after considering
the terms of a marriage annulment decree. Specifically, you have asked whether the
marriage annulment decree renders the marriage voidable. If so, you have asked us
to determine the effective date of the marriage annulment, which would determine whether
the claimant is entitled to widower’s benefits as a surviving divorced spouse under
the number holder’s record.
ANSWER
We conclude that the marriage annulment decree established that the underage marriage
between Raymond and the number holder never existed in law. Accordingly, the claimant
is not entitled to widower’s benefits as a surviving divorced spouse under the number
holder’s record.
BACKGROUND
Marie (number holder) birth certificate shows that she was born on January. On April
, when the number holder was sixteen years old, the number holder and the claimant,
Raymond, filed a marriage license application in County of Bernalillo, New Mexico.
The marriage license incorrectly listed the number holder’s date of birth as January,
and the number holder’s parent or guardian did not sign the marriage license provision
that would serve to provide consent to the underage marriage. The number holder and
Raymond married on November 7, 1977, in County of Bernalillo, New Mexico (1977 marriage),
at which time the number holder was still sixteen years old. On May 15, 1987, the
number holder and Ismael filed a marriage license application in County of Bernalillo,
New Mexico. Their marriage license listed the number holder’s date of birth as January.
The number holder and Ismael married on May 23, 1987, in Bernalillo County, New Mexico
(1987 marriage).
On February 12, 1988, the number holder filed a Petition for Annulment of Marriage,
or in the Alternative, Dissolution of Marriage (Annulment Petition) in the Second
Judicial District Court, County of Bernalillo, New Mexico (Court). In the Annulment
Petition, under sworn affidavit, the number holder affirmed, in pertinent part, the
following:
-
•
Petitioner (number holder) and Respondent (Raymond) married on November 7, 1977.
-
•
At the time of marriage, number holder was a minor child of 16 years of age.
-
•
The parties secured a marriage license on April 7, 1977, in violation of Section 40-1-10,
NMSA 1978, which proscribed the issuance of any license to any person under the age
of majority without the consent of the underage person’s parents.
-
•
Number holder did not live with her parents at the time of her marriage, and the marriage
was contracted without the consent of her parents in violation of Section 40-1-5,
NMSA 1978.
-
•
At the time of the marriage, number holder was a minor and, therefore, incapable of
entering into the civil contract as prescribed by Section 40-1-1, NMSA 1978.
-
•
The parties lived together until 1980, at which time they decided that their marriage
was not valid because of the number holder’s age at the time she entered into the
marriage and because the county clerk had sent them a letter questioning the validity
of the marriage. By mutual agreement, the parties went their separate directions and
have not lived together as husband and wife since that time.
On February 19, 1988, the Court granted the number holder a Final Decree of Annulment
of Marriage (Annulment Decree). The Court considered pleadings and heard testimony
from the number holder and Raymond, and found, in pertinent part, as follows:
-
•
The Court has jurisdiction over the parties herein and the subject matter of this
action, and the Petitioner is entitled to a decree of annulment of marriage.
-
•
The allegations in the Annulment Petition are true and correct.
-
•
Petitioner entered into a marriage on May 23, 1987, with Ismael in Bernalillo County,
New Mexico.
-
•
Court found that in a chain of marriages a legal presumption exists that the one contracted
later in time is presumed valid.
-
•
The Court ratified as valid from its inception the subsequent marriage Petitioner
entered into with Ismael.
-
•
Therefore, the Court granted number holder an annulment of her 1977 marriage to Raymond
and recognized the number holder’s 1987 marriage to Ismael as valid.
On the same date, the district judge, the number holder, and Raymond signed the Annulment
Decree. The number holder and Raymond also signed a Parenting Plan, providing for
joint custody, visitation, and child support for two children born to the number holder
and Raymond.
The number holder died August 15, 2010, while domiciled in New Mexico. In March 2011,
Raymond filed for Title II disability benefits on his own record and filed for possible
widower’s benefits as a surviving divorced spouse on the number holder’s record. In
a letter dated March 2, 2012, Raymond claimed that there were continuous lies throughout
the number holder’s paper work, presumptively referring to the information the number
holder provided in the marriage license and the Annulment Petition. In his letter,
Raymond stated that he believed the January 1958, date of birth listed for the number
holder on the 1977 marriage license was her correct birth date. Raymond also stated
that he lived with the number holder for eleven years, not less than three years as
the number holder claimed in her annulment Petition. Raymond claimed that he signed
the Annulment Decree and the Parenting Plan without reading the papers.
ANALYSIS
To qualify for widower’s benefits as a surviving divorced spouse under the Social
Security Act (Act), a claimant must meet the requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 404.336.[1] 42 U.S.C. § 402(f). The regulations provide, in pertinent part, that a man qualifies
for widower’s benefits as a surviving divorced husband if he (1) was validly married
to the deceased insured individual under state law, as described in 20 C.F.R. § 404.345,
or was “deemed” to have been validly married, as described in 20 C.F.R. § 404.346;
and (2) he divorced the deceased insured individual, but only if he had been married
to the individual for a period of ten years immediately before the divorce became
effective. 42 U.S.C. § 416(d)(5); 20 C.F.R. § 404.336(a); POMS RS 00207.001(A)(2), 2002 WL 1878025. The regulations provide that a claimant can meet the marriage
relationship requirement if under state law a claimant would be able to inherit the
deceased insured individual’s personal property, if the insured were to die without
leaving a will. 20 C.F.R. § 404.345. To determine whether Raymond is entitled to widower’s
benefits as a surviving divorced spouse under the number holder’s record, the agency
looks to the laws of the state where the number holder had her permanent home when
she died, which in this case is New Mexico. 20 C.F.R. § 404.345.
We first look at whether the agency can accept the Annulment Decree as evidence that
the number holder was not validly married to Raymond. Agency policy states that a
state trial court decision does not bind the Commissioner when the agency is not a
party. See SSR 83-37C, 1983 WL 31272 (adopting Gray v. Richardson, 474 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1973)). However, the Commissioner must still recognize
a state court adjudication where all of the following prerequisites (prongs) are found:
(1) a state court of competent jurisdiction has determined an issue in a claim for
Social Security benefits; (2) parties with opposing interests genuinely contested
the issue before the state court; (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. Id.
Here, in regard to the first prong, the Court noted that it had jurisdiction over
the parties and subject matter of the action, and the Annulment Decree resolved an
issue in this case, i.e., the marital status of the number holder to Raymond. See Gray, 474 F.2d at 1373 (first prerequisite). In regard to the second prong, the Annulment
Decree states that both parties provided testimony, which shows that parties with
opposing interests genuinely contested the issues before the Court. See id. (second prerequisite). In regard to the third prong, the Court entered the Annulment
Decree under the New Mexico Domestic Affairs statutes, showing that the annulment
issue fell within the general category of domestic relations law. See id. (third prerequisite); see also N.M. Stat. Ann. § 40-1-9 (Domestic Affairs; Marriage in General; Ismael consistent
with the law enunciated by New Mexico’s highest court. See Gray, 474 F.2d at 1373 (fourth prerequisite). The New Mexico Supreme Court has ruled that
in “dual marriage situations, in which the validity of the second marriage is attacked
on the basis of the first [marriage] being a subsisting relationship at the time the
second [marriage] was contracted, the presumption of validity attaches to the second
marriage.” Panzer v. Panzer, 528 P.2d 888, 891 (N.M. 1974). In the Annulment Decree, consistent with Panzer, the Court annulled the number holder’s 1977 marriage to Raymond; found that in a
chain of marriages a legal presumption exists that the one contracted later in time
is presumed valid; and ratified the number holder’s 1987 marriage to Ismael. In sum,
the Annulment Decree meets all the Gray prongs. See Gray, 474 F.2d at 1373; SSR 83-37C. Thus, we conclude that the agency can accept the Annulment
Decree as evidence that the number holder was not validly married to Raymond under
New Mexico law.
We next look at whether Raymond was validly married to the number holder under New
Mexico law. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.345 (requirement to establish marriage relationship under state law).
In New Mexico, no person under the age of majority[2] can marry, unless she obtains the consent of her parent or guardian. N.M. Stat. Ann.
§ 40-1-5. New Mexico law specifically provides for the annulment of prohibited marriages,
declaring void marriages between “infants[3] under the prohibited ages . . . except by a decree of the district court upon proper
proceedings being had therein.” N.M. Stat. Ann. § 40-1-9. A New Mexico court specifically
noted that “the only type of marriages our Legislature has expressly declared to be
void are . . . marriages between or with infants under the age of majority.” Rivera v. Rivera, 2010-NMCA-106, 243 P.3d 1148, 1152 (N.M. Ct. App. 2010). Here, the number holder’s
birth certificate shows that the number holder was sixteen years old when she married
Raymond on November 7, 1977. [4] There is no evidence that the number holder’s parent or guardian consented to the
marriage. Thus, under New Mexico law, the number holder’s marriage to Raymond was
void when contracted in November 1977. Furthermore, in February 1988, the Court entered
an Annulment Decree annulling the number holder’s underage marriage to Raymond. In
New Mexico, the legal effect of annulment is to render a marriage void (not voidable).
N.M. Stat. Ann. § 40-1-9. Therefore, Raymond was not legally married to the number
holder under New Mexico law.
We next look at whether Raymond was “deemed” to be validly married to the number holder
under a New Mexico statute providing that a marriage is “deemed” legal and binding
when the parties live together until they arrive at the age under which marriage is
permitted. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 40-1-9.[5] Here, the Annulment Petition states that the number holder stopped living with Raymond
in 1980, [6] when she was nineteen years of age, after the county clerk sent them a letter questioning
the validity of their marriage. The Court entered an Annulment Decree on February
19, 1988, annulling the marriage between the number holder and Raymond, which established
that their marital status never existed in law. [7] Black’s Law Dictionary 89 (7th ed. 1999). Thus, under Section 40-1-9, New Mexico
would not deem Raymond to have been validly married to the number holder.
As previously noted, agency regulations provide that a claimant can also establish
the marriage relationship requirement if under state law, the claimant would be able
to inherit the insured’s personal property, if the insured were to die without leaving
a will.[8] 20 C.F.R. § 404.345. Under New Mexico law, a decedent’s estate not effectively disposed
of by will passes by intestate succession to the decedent’s heirs. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 45-2-101.
New Mexico law defines “heirs” as “persons, including the surviving spouse and the
state, who are entitled under the statues of intestate succession to the property
of a decedent.” N.M. Stat. Ann. § 45-1-201(23). New Mexico law specifically provides
that an individual whose marriage to the decedent has been annulled is not a surviving
spouse. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 45-2-802(A). Here, the Court annulled (not terminated under
a divorce decree) the number holder’s marriage to Raymond. Therefore, Raymond would
not be able to inherit the number holder’s property under New Mexico law, and Raymond
cannot establish the marriage relationship to the number holder under 20 C.F.R. § 404.345.
[9] We next look at whether Raymond was deemed to have been validly married to the number
holder under the Act. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.346 (marriage relationship based upon a deemed valid marriage). [10] The regulations provide that if a claimant’s relationship as the number holder’s
husband or widower cannot be established under state law, the claimant may be eligible
for benefits based upon a deemed valid marriage, as 20 C.F.R. § 404.346(a) describes.
A claimant is deemed to be the husband or widower of the number holder if, in good
faith, the claimant went through a marriage ceremony with the number holder that would
have resulted in a valid marriage, except for a legal impediment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.346(a).
The regulations define “legal impediment” as including only (emphasis added) an impediment
which results because a previous marriage had not ended at the time of the ceremony
or because there was a defect in the procedure followed in connection with the intended
marriage. Id. [11] “Good faith” means that at the time of the ceremony a party did not know that a legal
impediment existed, or if the party did know, the party thought that it would not
prevent a valid marriage. Id.
The number holder and Raymond obtained a marriage license on April 7, 1977, which
incorrectly showed the number holder’s date of birth as January. Based on the number
holder’s date of birth in the marriage license, the number holder would have been
of age of majority and legally free to marry at the time of application. Notably,
the number holder and Raymond followed the proper procedure to obtain a marriage license,
false information notwithstanding. [12] However, the legal impediment in this case was a prohibited underage marriage, not
an impediment which resulted because a previous marriage had not ended at the time
of the ceremony or an impediment because there was a defect in the procedure followed
in connection with the intended marriage. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.346(a) (requirements to establish a deemed marriage). Thus, Raymond
was not deemed to have been validly married to the number holder under 20 C.F.R. § 404.346(a).
We finally look at whether Raymond was validly married to the number holder for a
period of ten years. 20 C.F.R. § 404.336(a)(2). The regulations provide that a person
is entitled to widower’s benefits as a surviving divorced husband only if he had been
married to the individual for a period of ten years immediately before the divorce
became effective. 42 U.S.C. § 416(d)(5); 20 C.F.R. § 404.336(a)(2); POMS RS 00207.001(A)(2), 2002 WL 1878025. As previously noted, an annulment [13] establishes that marital status never existed in law. Black’s Law Dictionary 89 (7th
ed. 1999); see also Todd v. Tierney, 27 P.2d 991, 995 (N.M. 1933) (noting that “Webster defines “annul” as meaning “to
reduce to nothing; to obliterate” and “to make void or of no effect; to nullify; to
abolish; to do away with”).
The evidence shows that in February 1988, the Court granted an annulment (not a dissolution)
of the number holder’s 1977 marriage to Raymond based on evidence that showed that
the number holder was underage, sixteen years old, at the time of her marriage to
Raymond; the marriage was contracted without the consent of the number holder’s parent
or guardian in violation of New Mexico law; and the number holder and Raymond stopped
living together in 1980 after finding that their marriage was not valid. The Court
annulled the 1977 marriage between the number holder and Raymond and recognized as
valid the number holder’s 1987 marriage to Ismael. Therefore, the Annulment Decree
establishes that because the marital relationship between the number holder and Raymond
never existed in law, he was not married to her for a period of ten years, pursuant
to 20 C.F.R. § 404.336(a)(2), and Raymond does not qualify for widower’s benefits
as her surviving divorced spouse under the Act.
CONCLUSION
Raymond is not entitled to widower’s benefits on the number holder’s account as divorced-spouse
because he was not validly married, was not deemed to have been validly married to
the number holder, and is not entitled to inherit the number holder’s personal property
under New Mexico law. Raymond was also not deemed to have been validly married to
the number holder under the Act. Furthermore, Raymond cannot show that he was married
to the number holder for the requisite ten years. Therefore, Raymond is not entitled
to widower’s benefits as a surviving divorced spouse under the number holder’s record.
[14]
Michael McGaughran
Regional Chief Counsel
By: ______________________
Ruben Montemayor
Assistant Regional Counsel