You asked whether the marriage between Herschel M~ and Jean M~ was void. You have
further asked us how the agency should proceed on Jean M~’s claim for widow’s benefits
on the record of Herschel M~. For the reasons stated below, we believe that the marriage
was void. We further believe that the agency should deny Jean M~’s claim for benefits.
BACKGROUND
In 1969, Michigan residents Herschel M~ (“Herschel”) and Jean M~ (“Jean”) travelled
to Illinois. They had a marriage ceremony in Illinois and returned to Michigan the
next day. At the time of their marriage ceremony, Herschel was already married to
his first wife (although Jean seemed to have been unaware of this fact). Herschel
divorced his first wife just prior to May 1984.
In May 1984, upon the motion of Jean, a Michigan court entered (but did not finalize)
an order that “dissolved [the marriage between Herschel and Jean] and declared [that
marriage] to be void.” The basis of the court’s decision was that Herschel had another
legal wife (i.e. his first wife) living at the time that he entered into his marriage
with Jean. However, the court also noted that “the purported marriage” between Herschel
and Jean “was contracted in good faith.”
Herschel then married a third woman, stating that he had never been legally married
to Jean. In May 1985, the Michigan court finalized the order dissolving the marriage
between Herschel and Jean.
In 2004, Herschel died while residing in Michigan. In 2011, Jean applied for widow’s
benefits on the record of Herschel.
DISCUSSION
To be entitled to widow’s benefits, a claimant must (among other factors) meet the
relationship requirements of POMS RS 00207.001(A)(1)(a). A claimant can meet those relationship requirements by either having been
the legal spouse, putative spouse, or deemed spouse of the number holder at the time
of his death. POMS RS 00207.001(A)(1)(a). Jean was neither the legal spouse, putative spouse, or deemed spouse of
Herschel at the time of his death.
Jean was not the legal spouse of Herschel because her marriage to him was void from
its outset. A void marriage is a marriage “which is legally nonexistent from the beginning
under State law, with or without a judicial decree.” POMS GN 00305.125(A). Consequently, individuals who enter into “a void marriage are considered never
to have been husband and wife.” POMS GN 00305.125(A).
For purposes of widow’s benefits, we look to the law of the state where the insured
died to determine the validity of the marriage. Here, Herschel died in Michigan, but
the marriage license is from Illinois, and the wedding ceremony was in Illinois. Michigan
law recognizes a marriage of its citizens that occurs in another state, as long as
the marriage is valid under that other state’s laws. M.C.L.A. § 551.271. Therefore,
Michigan courts would look to Illinois law in determining whether the marriage was
void at its inception. See M.C.L.A. § 551.271. Under Illinois law, a marriage is void from the outset if one
of the parties to the marriage is already married. See Cardenas v. Cardenas, 12 Ill. App. 2d 497, 505 (Ill App. Ct., 1st Dist., 1957). Because Herschel was already
married at the time of his marriage ceremony with Jean, the Michigan court correctly
determined that the marriage between Herschel and Jean was void. As her marriage was
void at the outset, Jean does not meet the relationship requirement for widow’s benefits
by having been Herschel’s legal spouse at the time of his death. Similarly, Jean was
not the putative spouse of Herschel at the time of his death. A putative marriage
occurs where there “is a good faith belief in the existence of a valid marriage at
its inception and . . . good faith until the worker dies (in a death case).” POMS
GN 00305.085(A)(1). A putative marriage may permit a widow to share in the distribution of the
number holder’s intestate personal property, and thus satisfy the relationship requirement
for widow’s benefits. However, while Jean originally contracted her marriage to Herschel
“in good faith,” by 1984 she learned that her marriage was void (when it was declared
void by the Michigan court). In addition, Jean was not living with Herschel as his
spouse at the time of his death, and thus could not be a putative spouse under Michigan
law. See Stevenson v. City of Detroit, 201 N.W.2d 668, 691-92 (noting that a woman could be considered a deceased man’s
putative wife when, among other factors, she “lived with him as his wife until his death” (emphasis added)). As such, Jean does not meet the relationship requirement for
widow’s benefits by having been Herschel’s putative spouse at the time of his death.
Finally, Jean does not meet the relationship requirement for widow’s benefits by having
been Herschel’s deemed spouse at the time of his death. A claimant can only be a deemed
spouse of a deceased individual if she was living with that individual at the time
of his death. 20 C.F.R. § 404.346(b); POMS GN 00305.055. As Jean was not living with Herschel at the time of his death, she was not the deemed
spouse of Herschel. We also considered whether Jean would meet the requirements for
being a surviving divorced spouse. The POMS specify that a surviving divorced spouse
must have a final divorce from a number holder and have been the legal, putative or
deemed spouse of the number holder for ten years. POMS RS 00207.001(A)(2)(a). Here, Jean does not have a final divorce from Herschel (she has an annulment)
and, there is no basis for characterizing the annulment as a divorce under Michigan
law. Thus, she would not be entitled to surviving divorced spouse’s benefits.
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, we conclude that Jean M~ does not meet the relationship requirements
for widow’s benefits, and thus is not entitled to benefits on the record of Herschel
M~.
Grace M. K~
Acting Regional Chief Counsel, Region V
By
David L~
Assistant Regional Counsel