Answer each question independently by itself.
Base your answers off previous cases and standing laws. Base your statements on facts and not emotions.
PROBLEM 1: Alice and Kim, two seventeen-year-olds, have been dating throughout high school. One day, they decide to
marry. They cross the border, lie about their ages and then celebrate their marriage with a justice of the peace
officiating. They return home, telling no one of their adventure.
By the time that they have reached their eighteenth birthdays, they hate each other and decide to pretend they never
married. A year later, Alice meets the love of her life and seeks legal advice to determine whether she needs to divorce
Kim. What should the attorney say?
Notes: By the end of the 20th century, a majority of states had adopted statutes raising the age of martial consent in
ending recognition of common law marriage. Which displace the common law age of presumptive consent. Vivian E. Hamiliton,
The age of martial capacity: Reconsidering civil recognition of adolescent marriage, 92 B.U.L. Rev. 1817, 1830) (2012).
PROBLEM 2: David and Daniel live in a state that does not permit same-sex marriages to be celebrated, although the
adjacent state does recognize same-sex marriage. They consult an attorney to learn about the legal effects of their
contracting a marriage in a neighboring state. Assuming the state follows prevailing marriage recognition rules, how
should the attorney advise them? Would it make a difference, if the states same sex marriage ban was common law,
statutory or constitutional? Why or Why not?
Notes:
A. The federal government has announced it will recognize for certain purpose a same sex marriage that is validly
celebrated in one state even if not recognized in the couple’s domicile. See IRB Rev. Rul. 2013-17 2013-38 I.R.B. 201,
available at 2013. WL 4607583. Suppose that the federal government instead looked to the domiciles law to determine
whether the marriage would be recognized for any federal purpose.
B. Traditionally states have much greater latitude to not recognize “acts” and “records” from other states than “judicial
proceedings” from other states. Robust “full faith and credit” is given to judgments.
See H.R. rep 104-664, 664, 104th Cong., 2 Sess. 1996, 1996 WL 391835, 1996 U.S.C. C.A.N. 2905 (Leg. Hist.) pp. 28-29. See
Jackie Gardina Same Sex Marriages in Bankruptcy: A Path of the Public Policy Quagmire, 2013. ANN. SURV. BANDR. L 14.
PROBLEM 3: Hal and Wanda began living together after graduating from high school. After two years, Wanda wanted to marry,
and Hal, in good faith, told her if they exchanged “I do’s” and a ring it would make a valid marriage and they did so
privately, but told everyone that they were married and had 3 children before Hal moved out 10 years after they exchanged
rings . Does Wanda have a valid claim to be Hal’s common law wife in Alabama, or putative spouse in California?
Notes:
A. Apparently, Alabama does not require the couple to do anything after the impediment of the marriage has been to remove
in order to create the common law marriage. Other states that the couple actual recognize that a new state of affairs
exist now that the impediment no longer exists. They do not just “slide” into common law marriage.
B. A looser equitable doctrine is “marriage by estopel,” rarely but potentially invoke in cases to prevent a party from
denying the validity of a marriage even though the legal requirements for it (or for putative spouse status) may not be
fully satisfied. See In Re Marriage of Recknor, Watts v. Watts, 137 Wis. 2d 506, 405, N. W. 2d 303 (Wis. 197) (Rejecting
Equitable marriage but endorsing contract, unjust enrichment, constructive trust, etc.).
Reference : Family Law Cases and Commentary from Multiple Perspectives by Lynn D. Wardle, Mark S. Strasser, and Lynne
Marie Kohm.
Place this order with us and get 18% discount now! to earn your discount enter this code: special18 If you need assistance chat with us now by clicking the live chat button.