H traveled to Mexico 🇲🇽 to obtain a divorce from his first wife, with whom he had two children. She was personally served with the divorce papers, but did not appear in court in Mexico, nor did she contest the divorce. Neither party was domiciled in Mexico, so the divorce would almost certainly have been held invalid had it been timely and properly contested in a Florida court. However, it was not. Shortly after the Mexican divorce, in 1936, H married W and they lived together in Florida. H’s first wife also apparently believed the Mexican divorce was valid and that her marriage was terminated, although she never remarried.
H applied for old age social security insurance benefits in January 1961 and become entitled to the benefits based on his application in January 1960. W applied for wife’s social security benefits based on H’s earnings record at the same time.
The question for Social Security to decide was whether, based on the questionable validity of H’s Mexican divorce, W was H’s wife for purposes of receiving wife’s benefits under the Social Security Act.
If W could inherit H’s personal property under Florida’s laws of intestate devolution, then she was deemed to be his wife for Social Security purposes.
Under Florida law, the validity of a marriage cannot be challenged on the grounds that one of the spouse’s prior marriage was invalid unless the party raising the question has a right to impeach the divorce decree.
In the instant case, H would not be allowed by Florida courts to impeach a divorce decree he had obtained himself.
H’s prior wife would have been barred from attacking the divorce as well, on the ground of the doctrine of laches (or waiting too long to assert a right), because it was now 25 years later and H had entered a subsequent ceremonial marriage.
H’s children would not have had standing in Florida courts to impeach the divorce decree either, whether as strangers, or as being in privity with H. A child asserting her rights as heir or potential heir has been held under Florida law to have no more than a mere expectancy until the death of her father. This is not the kind of pre-existing right that would be required for a collateral attack on the divorce decree as a stranger.
But even if H’s children were held by a Florida court to be in privity with H, they could have no more right to attack the divorce decree than H himself.
Because there was no one who could defeat W’s right under Florida law to inherit H’s personal property, she was deemed to be H’s wife for social security purposes, even if there was a procedural defect in H’s divorce.
Held: Wife’s social security benefits granted to W, based on H’s earnings record.
See Social Security Ruling (SSR) 61-65.
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.
