IN RE ESTATE OF SANTOLINO
895 A.2d 506 (2005)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Santolino (W) filed a verified complaint for letters of
administration upon the death of her husband. The decedent's sister (S), filed a caveat
against letters granting administration, claiming that the decedent's marriage to petitioner
was a nullity under N.J. Stat. Ann. 2A:34-1. W moved to dismiss under N.J. Ct. R.
4:6-2(e), contending the sister lacked standing to challenge the validity of the marriage.
FACTS: The decedent and W first met in January 2000, when W moved into the decedent's
home as a tenant. On or about March 11, 2004, the decedent was admitted to Trinitas
Hospital. During his hospitalization, he was diagnosed with lung cancer. He was released
from the hospital on April 1, 2004, at which time he returned to his Elizabeth residence. W
and the decedent were married on April 27, 2004, in the Elizabeth Municipal Court. The
decedent was eighty-one and one-half years old, and W was forty-six years old. He was
readmitted to Trinitas Hospital on May 11, 2004, where he expired on May 20, 2004. No will
has ever been found. Decedent's heir is his sister, Mercedes Tabor (S). S filed a caveat
against letters granting administration. S claims that the marriage to the petitioner is a
nullity pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:34-1. S alleges that the decedent at the time of the
marriage was impotent; the decedent lacked capacity to marry due to want of understanding
because of mental condition; there was fraud as to the essentials of marriage; and there
exist reasons allowable under general equity jurisdiction to nullify the marriage. W filed a
motion to dismiss under R. 4:6-2(e) claiming that S lacks standing to question the validity
of the marriage, and that the claim as to the validity of the marriage does not state a
cause of action since the death of the decedent terminated the marriage, and the validity of
the marriage, therefore, can no longer be questioned. The court found that the 1931 statute
on annulments altered the common law and it made a marriage, even one where one of the
parties is incapable mentally of consenting, voidable, not void. The court held that it
would not look into allegations of a voidable marriage after the death of one of the parties
to the marriage. This appeal resulted. S attacks the marriage on four different grounds: (1)
the deceased was impotent, N.J.S.A. 2A:34-1(c); (2) he was unable to consent to the
marriage, N.J.S.A. 2A:34-1(d); (3) the marriage was based on fraud as to the essentials of
the marriage, N.J.S.A. 2A:34-1 (d); and (4) there exist equitable reasons to declare the
marriage void, N.J.S.A. 2A:34-1(f).
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment