Two marriages to one man plus one divorce equals still married?

[foreverknight]

This took me by surprise.

I am about to marry a woman whom I thought was divorced. Lately she discovered that she is still married even though she divorced properly.

Confused? So am I!

My fiancee married a man who turned out to be abusive and she left him. No divorce, she just left. He got counseling and begged her to return, using a lot of blackmail to get her to say yes.

When she did, he insisted on another wedding as a sign of their new commitment to each other and there's the problem.

Years later she divorced him and thought that was it.

Now she says she's discovered that divorce refers only to ONE of those marriage ceremonies not both.

She consulted a local lawyer in New Jersey, where she now lives, who says that she is still married in law.

Is this true?

I've never heard of this and I'm wondering how many other people might be living bigamously due to this confusion.

Both marriages were in NYC as was the one divorce.

John

 

[dee_dub]

I'm not confused, I'm laughing. I would be very surprised if her second wedding ceremony resulted in her being married twice to the same person. Does she have two marriage licenses?

The certificates of divorce I've seen only identifies the marriage by the name of the parties. It does not refer specifically to e.g. "the marriage entered into on October 5, 2003". I infer that it contemplates either a) people can only be married once to each other at a given time, or b) the divorce decree is valid for any and all marriages between them. I'm curious what her divorce certificate says.

 

[foreverknight]

I've seen the divorce certificate so I know it happened. I didn't think to check whether it referred to any particular marriage.

Clearly I'm asking because I've had my suspicions from the first.

Your answer makes sense to me but I need to be sure this isn't some aberration of US law or some weird consequence of NYC laws as I'm from the UK.

We got a divorce-yourself kit after finding out all this.

Do you think we've been conned or do you think my fiancee is conning me?

John

 

[foreverknight]

Oh and thank you for answering so quickly or at all.

I'm very grateful.

John

 

[dee_dub]

I'm not a NY solicitor, so what do I know, but it sounds exceedingly illogical to me. If you've got a NY solicitor's opinion she needs to get divorced twice, you might want to seek a second opinion.

It doesn't sound like its related to you being from the UK - no divorce law that I'm aware of is contingent on the nationality of some prospective future second spouse.

If it's a con, what's the angle? Your fiancee is willing to do what it takes to get divorced, whatever that may be if it's not already done, so I guess she's on the level. And the lawyer who suggested she needs to get divorced twice would look foolish if he's wrong. I don't see how anyone stands to benefit from making her get divorced twice.

 

[foreverknight]

It's even more complicated! It's bigamy!

This just got a lot more complicated so please bear with me, even though I hope you'll find the details interesting.

My fiancee has discovered the REAL reason her ex-husband was so keen to have a proper wedding with her the second time wasn't just to renew their vows.

It turns out he was still married to his first wife the FIRST time he married my fiancee!

He swears he didn't know at the time but I find that hard to believe. The fact that he's a car salesman doesn't help that either.

He WAS properly divorced by the time he married my fiancee the SECOND time and they both believe that gives them two marriage certificates.

Two certificates actually exist because they did not tell the NYC authorities about the first marriage. He made some excuse about not being able to find his divorce papers. Now all this has come out I can see why. He had committed bigamy!

By marrying her the second time he thought he was making the first marriage legal.

My fiancee believes the divorce means only one marriage was dissolved and another divorce must happen to dissolve the second.

My argument is that the first marriage is null and void because it was bigamous and anyway, as you said, a divorce is between two people no matter how many marriages between them took place.

I say she's free to marry me now.

What do you think?

John

 

[dee_dub]

Here's how I read it:

Their first marriage was invalid because it was bigamous. It can be annulled, if the second marriage or the divorce did not already have that effect.

Their second marriage was valid, and their divorced.

So she might still need an annulment. I tend to think not - that the second marriage was recognition of the first marriage's nullity - but talk to a lawyer to be sure.

 

[foreverknight]

Thank you so much for replying so often to this thread. I really do appreciate it very much.

So to be absolutely sure that I read you correctly may I phrase it this way.

The first marriage was bigamous so the only valid marriage is the second. Being a valid marriage, the divorce dissolved the union between these two people regardless of how many marriages took place previously.

However, to be sure of this point, consult a lawyer.

I would assume, to be doubly sure, a good NYC lawyer?

John

 

[dee_dub]

Not quite, but close enough. You don't need the "Being a valid marriage" clause. The crucial bit, is the remainder of that sentence: that the divorce should have dissolved any marriage between the two.

You also omitted that she might apply for an annulment of the invalid bigamous marriage. I can't imagine it's necessary since she's already gotten divorced, but what do I know.

The "consult a lawyer" point is important, and yes, a NY lawyer.

 

[foreverknight]

Thank you.

I'm talking to an NYC law firm now and their first impression is that the first marriage is "void ab initio" and that the divorce applies to the second marriage regardless. They're contacting a divorce clerk in NYC to make sure that's in fact the case.

I'll keep you up to date.

John

 

[foreverknight]

you were absolutely right

I've now consulted with two different NYC firms and they both confirm what you said in the beginning.

The first marriage is void ab initio and the divorce is valid regardless.

My fiancee is slightly in shock as this has been hanging over us a year but it's good shock.

Thank you so much for your help and advice.

John

 

[dee_dub]

You're welcome. Sometimes logic and the law do coincide.