A claimant remarried after the death of her first husband, who was domiciled in Rhode Island at the time of his death. A little over a year after her remarriage she obtained a divorce in the Dominican Republic, even though neither she nor her husband was domiciled there. In the divorce, she appeared in person at the tribunal in the Dominican Republic, and her husband appeared through a lawyer.

After the divorce, she applied for social security mother’s benefits based on her deceased husband’s work record. Her application was denied on the grounds that her divorce would not be recognized by a Rhode Island court. Therefore, because she was still married in the eyes of Social Security, she could not receive benefits based on her deceased husband’s record. She appealed.

The Court upheld the agency’s decision. Because neither the claimant nor her second husband was a resident of the Dominican Republic, Rhode Island courts would not have recognized the divorce. The Court rejected claimant’s argument that some kind of federal divorce law should apply. Divorce and family law matters are typically governed by state laws.

Though there was no specific Rhode Island case law exactly on point, the vast majority of states considering the issue had ruled that a bilateral divorce obtained in an out of state jurisdiction where neither party had residency was not valid because of a lack of jurisdiction.

The claimant’s estoppel argument failed as well. This was because, although both she and her second husband had both agreed to the divorce and could potentially have estopped each other from claiming the divorce was invalid, the same did not apply to the Social Security Administration. This was because the administration was not a party to the divorce and had derived no benefit from it. Therefore, the equitable principle of estoppel did not prevent Social Security from asserting the divorce’s invalidity.

See Slessinger v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 1A Unempl. Ins. Rep. (CCH) paragraph 17, 843 (1st Cir. 1987). See also Social Security Ruling (SSR) 88-15c.

I believe the agency fights cases like this in order to avoid any precedent that would allow people to receive benefits based on what they consider to be a sham divorce.

This material should not be construed as legal advice for any particular fact situation, but is intended for general informational purposes only. For advice specific to any individual situation, an experienced attorney should be contacted.