Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1995

Charles William Coulter and wife, Donna Lee Coulter v. Richard Anthony Hendricks

Charles William Coulter and wife, Donna Lee Coulter v. Richard Anthony Hendricks
Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Decided October 3, 1995 · Presiding Judge Houston M. Goddard

Charles William Coulter and wife, Donna Lee Coulter v. Richard Anthony Hendricks

Opinion

I N THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE EASTERN SECTI ON FILED October 3, 1995 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk CHARLES W LLI AM COULTER a nd I ) HAM LTON COUNTY I wi f e DONNA LEE COULTER ) 03A01- 9505- CH- 00150 ) Pl a i nt i f f s - Appe l l a nt s ) ) ) v. ) HON. HOWELL N. PEOPLES, ) CHANCELLOR ) RI CHARD ANTHONY HENDRI CKS ) ) De f e nda nt - Appe l l e e ) AFFI RMED AND REMANDED

W GERALD TI DW . ELL, J R. , OF CHATTANOOGA FOR APPELLANTS WADE K. CANNON a nd TERRY ATKI N CAVETT OF CHATTANOOGA FOR APPELLEE

O P I N I O N

Godda r d, P. J .

Thi s i s a s ui t by Cha r l e s W l l i a m Coul t e r a nd Donna Le e i Co u l t e r , br ot he r a nd s i s t e r of Li nda Di a ne Ros e He ndr i c ks , who d i e d i n a n a ut omobi l e a c c i de nt on Apr i l 24, 1994, s e e ki ng t o h a v e h e r ma r r i a ge on Apr i l 1, 1994, t o Ri c ha r d Ant hony He ndr i c ks , a n n u l l e d. The Cha nc e l l or gr a nt e d M . He ndr i c ks ' r mot i on unde r Ru l e 1 2 . 02( 6) of t he Te nne s s e e Rul e s of Ci vi l Pr oc e dur e , whi c h c o n t e n d e d t he c ompl a i nt f a i l e d " t o s t a t e a c l a i m upon whi c h r e l i e f c a n b e gr a nt e d. "

The br ot he r a nd s i s t e r a ppe a l c ont e ndi ng t he Cour t wa s i n e r r or .

The Compl a i na nt s a l l e ge t ha t t he y a r e t he s ol e he i r s a n d n e x t of ki n of t he de c e a s e d, who wa s ma r r i e d t o M . He ndr i c k s r o n Ap r i l 1, 1994, a nd t ha t t he i r s i s t e r , a s a l r e a dy not e d, di e d o n Ap r i l 24, 1994. The y c ont e nd t ha t t he ma r r i a ge wa s voi d a b i ni t i o be c a us e i t wa s e nt e r e d i nt o i n j e s t wi t h no i nt e nt i on o n t he p a r t of t he i r s i s t e r t o c ons umma t e i t , a nd t ha t t he i r s i s t e r , b e c a u s e of he r me nt a l di s a bi l i t y, di d not ha ve t he c a pa c i t y t o e nt e r i nt o a ma r r i a ge c e r e mony.

M . He ndr i c ks ' r b r i e f a c c ur a t e l y s t a t e s our s t a nda r d of r e v i e w a s t o Rul e 12. 02( 6) mot i ons :

I n c ons i de r i ng t he a ppe a l of a Rul e 12. 02( 6) mo t i on t o di s mi s s , t he Cour t of Appe a l s i s r e qui r e d t o t a ke t he a l l e ga t i ons of t he c ompl a i nt a s t r ue a nd t o c o ns t r ue t he a l l e ga t i ons l i be r a l l y i n f a vor of t he p l a i nt i f f . Pe mbe r t on v. Ame r i c a n Di s t i l l e d Spi r i t s Co. , 664 S. W 2d 690, 691 ( Te nn. 1984) . . Si nc e t hi s a p pe a l i s be f or e t he Cour t of Appe a l s on a que s t i on of l a w, t he s c ope of t he r e vi e w i s de novo wi t h no p r e s umpt i on of c or r e c t ne s s f or t he t r i a l c our t ' s c o nc l us i on. Mont gome r y v. M yor of t he Ci t y of a Co vi ngt on , 778 S. W 2d 444, 445 ( Te nn. Ct . App. 1988) , . p e r m. a pp. de n. ( Te nn. 1989) .

A mot i on t o di s mi s s pur s ua nt t o Rul e 12. 02( 6) f or f a i l ur e t o s t a t e a c l a i m upon whi c h r e l i e f c a n be g r a nt e d i s t he e qui va l e nt of a de mur r e r unde r our f o r me r c ommon l a w pr oc e dur e a nd, t hus , i s a t e s t of t he

s u f f i c i e nc y of t he l e a di ng pl e a di ng. Humphr i e s v. W s t e En d Te r r a c e , I nc . , 795 S. W 2d 128, 130 ( Te nn. Ct . App. .

1 9 90) , pe r m. a pp. de n. Suc h a mot i on a dmi t s t he t r ut h o f a l l r e l e va nt a nd ma t e r i a l a ve r me nt s c ont a i ne d i n t he c o mpl a i nt but a s s e r t s t ha t s uc h f a c t s do not c ons t i t ut e a c a us e of a c t i on. i d. Howe ve r , a dmi s s i ons of t hi s n a t ur e , ma de s ol e l y i n c onne c t i on wi t h t he mot i on t o d i s mi s s , do not c ons t i t ut e a dmi s s i ons c ha r ge a bl e t o t he p r opone nt of t he mot i on f or pur pos e s of t he l i t i ga t i on a s a whol e . Ant hony v. Ti dwe l l , 560 S. W 2d 908, 910 . ( Te nn. 1977) . A c ompl a i nt s houl d be di s mi s s e d f or f a i l ur e t o s t a t e a c l a i m i f i t a ppe a r s be yond doubt t h a t pl a i nt i f f c a n pr ove no s e t of f a c t s i n s uppor t of i t s c l a i m t ha t woul d e nt i t l e hi m t o r e l i e f . Pe mbe r t on, 6 4 S. W 2d a t 691. .

The pr i nc i pa l qu e s t i on t o be de t e r mi ne d i n t hi s a ppe a l i s wh e t he r t he ma r r i a ge wa s voi d or voi da bl e . The pa r t i e s c o n c e d e t ha t i f voi da bl e t he r i ght t o ha ve i t s e t a s i de a ba t e d u p o n t h e de a t h of e i t he r pa r t y.

I n r e s ol vi ng t he i s s ue r a i s e d, t hi s Cour t , i n Woods v .

W o d s , 638 S. W 2d 403 ( Te nn. App. 1983) , a n opi ni on by J udge Le wi s , o . q u o t e s wi t h a ppr ova l f r om Gi bs on' s Sui t s i n Cha nc e r y ( 5t h e d. ) , a s f o l l ows ( a t pa ge 405) :

A ma r r i a ge i s vo i d f r om t he be gi nni ng ( 1) whe n e i t he r p a r t y wa s a l r e a dy l a wf ul l y ma r r i e d; or ( 2) . . . ; o r ( 3) whe n t he pa r t i e s a r e wi t hi n pr ohi bi t e d de gr e e s o f ki ns hi p; or ( 4) wh e n, f or a ny ot he r r e a s on, t he ma r r i a ge wa s pr ohi bi t e d by l a w, a nd i t s c ont i nua nc e i s i n v i ol a t i on o f l a w. [ Ci t a t i ons omi t t e d. ] A ma r r i a ge i s voi da bl e f r om t he be gi nni ng ( 1) whe n e i t he r p a r t y wa s i ns a ne ; 1 or ( 2) t he c ompl a i na nt wa s u n de r dur e s s ; or ( 3) wa s unde r t he a ge of c ons e nt ; or ( 4 ) whe n t he c ons e nt wa s obt a i ne d by f or c e , or f r a ud, a n d wa s gi ve n by mi s t a ke ; or ( 5) whe n t he de f e nda nt wa s

Emp h a s i s s u p p l i e d .

i mpot e nt ; 2 or ( 6) whe n t he woma n wa s pr e gna nt by a n ot he r ma n wi t hout t he knowl e dge of t he c ompl a i na nt ; o r ( 7) whe n, f or a ny ot he r r e a s on, t he ma r r i a ge wa s not b i ndi ng on t he c ompl a i na nt . [ Empha s i s s uppl i e d. ] Gi bs on' s Sui t s i n Cha nc e r y § 1147 not e 10 ( 5t h e d . 1956) .

As t o t he i ns a ni t y t he or y, we be l i e ve t he Supr e me Co u r t c a s e of Br ya nt v. Towns e nd, 188 Te nn. 630, 221 S. W 2d 949 ( 194 9 ) , . i s d i s p os i t i ve . I n t ha t c a s e a non c ompos me nt i s ma r r i e d a wo ma n s o me s i x we e ks be f or e he r de a t h. Hi s he i r s br ought s ui t t o ha v e t h e ma r r i a ge a nnul l e d s o t he wi dow c oul d not i nhe r i t f r om hi s es t at e. The gr ound f or a nnul me nt wa s t ha t he l a c ke d me nt a l c a pa c i t y t o e nt e r i nt o t he ma r r i a ge . I n t ha t c a s e t he Supr e me Co u r t h e l d t he ma r r i a ge wa s voi da bl e , a nd i n doi ng s o s t a t e d t h e f o l l o wi ng ( 188 Te nn. a t 634; 221 S. W 2d a t 951) : .

Spe c i f i c a l l y, i n t he c a s e o f Col e v. Col e , 3 7 Te nn. 57, 70 Am. De c . 275, i t wa s he l d t ha t whe r e a ma r r i a ge wa s a t t a c ke d on t he gr ound of t he i ns a ni t y of t h e woma n who ha d not be e n a dj udge d non c ompos me nt i s , t h a t t he ma r r i a ge wa s voi da bl e a nd not voi d, a nd t ha t t h e ma r r i a ge c oul d be r a t i f i e d by he r i n a s ubs e que nt l u c i d i nt e r va l . Ha d t he ma r r i a ge be e n voi d a b i ni t i o, o b vi ous l y i t c oul d not ha ve be e n l a t e r r a t i f i e d, s i nc e i n l e ga l c ont e mpl a t i on, i t ha d ne ve r oc c ur r e d.

W ha ve no s t a t ut e t ha t pr ohi bi t s or a nnul s t he e ma r r i a ge of a n i ns a ne pe r s on. The onl y a ppl i c a bl e p r ovi s i on of our s t a t ut or y l a w i s t ha t of t he pr e s e nt ma r r i a ge l i c e ns i ng l a w, whi c h f or bi ds t he Cl e r k t o i s s ue a l i c e ns e whe n one of t he pa r t i e s i s a known l una t i c o r i mbe c i l e , Se c t i on 3, Cha p. 8 1, Publ i c Ac t s o f 1937, but di s r e ga r d of t hi s pr ovi s i on doe s not r e nde r t he ma r r i a ge voi d but me r e l y voi da bl e a f t e r a n a p pr opr i a t e pr oc e e di ng. Ke i t h v. Pa c k, 182 Te nn. 420, 2 3, 187 S. W 2d 618, 159 A. L. R. 101. .

Emp h a s i s i n o r i g i n a l opi ni on.

I t c a n be s e e n f r om t he f or e goi ng t ha t whe n t he gr ou n d s f o r a n n ul me nt a r e not pr oh i bi t e d by s t a t ut e or by s t r ong publ i c p o l i c y a nd a r e s uc h t ha t t he pa r t i e s ma y s ubs e que nt l y r a t i f y t h e ma r r i a g e , i t i s v oi da bl e , r a t he r t ha n voi d.

The Pl a i nt i f f s c ont e nd t ha t Br ya nt i s not c ont r ol l i ng b e c a u s e , a s t he y i ns i s t i n t he i r br i e f , t h e de c i s i on wa s bot t ome d u p o n t h e f a c t t ha t " s i nc e M . Br ya nt l i ve d s ome s i x ( 6) we e ks r a f t e r h i s ma r r i a ge , a nd hi s he i r s kne w of hi s me nt a l de f e c t pr i o r t o t h e ma r r i a ge a nd t ook no a c t i on t o pr ot e c t hi m ( i . e . a p p o i n t me nt of a gua r di a n) , t he y ha d no gr ounds t o br i ng t he s ui t . "

W , howe ve r , a gr e e wi t h t he a r gume nt of M . He ndr i c k s e r t h a t t h i s wa s a n a l t e r na t e r e a s on f or t he Cour t ' s de c i s i on.

As t o t he ma r r i a ge i n j e s t f e a t ur e of t he a ppe a l , we n o t e t h a t t he c a s e s c i t e d by t he Appe l l a nt s a ppl y t he t r a di t i on a l c o mmo n l a w c ont r a c t r ul e t o ma r r i a ge ; vi z , mut ua l c ons e nt by p a r t i e s i nt e ndi ng t o be bound. Da vi s v. Da vi s , 175 A. 174 ( Co n n . 1 934) ; Cr ouc h v. W r t e nbe r g, 112 S. E. 234 ( W Va . 1922) ; a .

Cr o u c h v. W r t e nbe r g , 104 S. E. 117 ( W Va . 1920) . a .

Te nne s s e e , howe v e r , doe s not f ol l ow t he c ommon- l a w r u l e a s t o ma r r i a ge c ont r a c t s , a s s hown by Br ya nt v. Towns e nd, s upr a , wh e r e i n t he Cour t s t a t e d t he f ol l owi ng ( 188 Te nn. a t 633; 221 S. W 2 d a t 950) : .

The l a w of ma r r i a ge i n Te nne s s e e i s not c ont r ol l e d b y r ul e s of t he c ommon l a w, but i s a ma t t e r of s t a t ut e .

Si nc e 1829, t hi s Cour t ha s f r e que nt l y s o he l d.

" The mor e i mpor t a nt pr ovi s i ons of t he s e a c t s of As s e mbl y a r e a l mos t e nt i r e l y t he s a me , e xhi bi t i ng a s e t t l e d pur pos e t o f i x a nd r e gul a t e t he c ont r a c t of ma r r i a ge s o a s t o r e s t or be de pe nde nt on muni c i pa l l a w a l one ; e s t a bl i s hi ng a s ys t e m i nt e nde d t o be c ompl e t e i n i t s e l f , e vi de nc e by t he a t t e nt i on pa i d t o e ve r y p a r t i c ul a r , i n f or m a s we l l a s s ubs t a nc e , whi c h t he i mpor t a nc e of s uc h a r e l a t i on, bot h i n a pr i va t e a nd a p u bl i c vi e w, s o d e s e r ve dl y me r i t e d. He nc e , t he s e a c t s o f As s e mbl y, a s wa s i nt e nde d by t he m, ope r a t e a nd e f f e c t a c ha nge i n t he f or m a nd s ubs t a nc e of t he ma r r i a ge c ont r a c t , a nd i t s s ol e mni z a t i on, f r om wha t i t wa s a t t he c ommon l a w. * * * we s a y, t ha t t he s e r e qui r e me nt s , u nde r t he s e c i r c ums t a nc e s , c ons t i t ut e s u c h a body of pr oof , a s t o r e nde r i r r e s t i bl e , i n our o p i ni ons , t he c or r e c t ne s s of t he pos i t i on, t ha t a ma r r i a ge , t o be va l i d, mus t be a c c or di ng t o t he s e a c t s , a n d t ha t t he c ommon l a w i s whol l y s upe r s e de d on t he s a me s ubj e c t by t he m. " Ba s ha w v. St a t e , 9 Te nn. 177, 8 3- 184.

" Ac c or di ngl y, s i nc e t he ye a r 1741, a t t he l e a s t , t h e c ommon l a w mode of c ons t i t ut i ng a l e ga l ma r r i a ge i s o f no va l i di t y he r e . Thi s poi nt wa s e xa mi ne d a t s ome l e ngt h i n t he c a s e of t he St a t e v. Ba s ha w, 1 Ye r g. Re p. 7 7, a nd t hi s c onc l us i on a r r i ve d a t a nd s us t a i ne d by t h e c our t . " Gr i s ha m v. St a t e , 10 Te nn. 589, 592.

" W a r e , t h e r e f or e , s a t i s f i e d, a nd hol d, t h a t i t e wa s t he i nt e nt i on of t he ge ne r a l a s s e mbl y, i n e na c t i ng t h e pr ovi s i ons of t he Code of 1858 upon t he s ubj e c t u n de r c ons i de r a t i on, t o a br oga t e t he c ommon l a w i n r e l a t i on t o ma r r i a ge s , a nd pr ovi de a ne w a nd e xc l us i ve ma nne r i n whi c h s uc h c ont r a c t s s houl d be ma de . " Smi t h v . Nor t h M mphi s Sa v. Ba nk , 115 Te nn. 12, 31, 89 S. W e .

3 9 2, 396.

For t he f or e goi ng r e a s ons t he j udgme nt of t he Tr i a l Co u r t i s a f f i r me d a nd t he c a us e r e ma nde d f or c ol l e c t i on of c os t s b e l o w. Cos t s of a ppe a l a r e a dj udge d a ga i ns t t he Appe l l a nt s a n d t he i r s ur e t y.

_______________________________ Hous t on M Godda r d, P. J . .

CONCUR:

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _________________________ Do n T. M M r a y, J . c ur

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _________________________ Ch a r l e s D. Sus a no, J r . , J .

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.