Aldrich v. Aldrich
WD84127
Opinion Filed 11/2/2021
Trial Court Ruling Affirmed
The parties, C. Aldrich (hereinafter “Petitioner”) and J. Aldrich (hereinafter “Respondent”) were married in a formal wedding ceremony on October 25th, 1991. The event was attended by nearly 100 guests, including the parties’ family and was officiated by a pastor who was authorized by law to solemnize marriages. During the ceremony, the couple exchanged vows and wedding rings. The parties also signed a marriage covenant that was provided by the church.
Following the wedding, Petitioner changed her surname on her driver’s license and social security card using the marriage covenant as proof of the marriage as Petitioner believed in good faith that she was lawfully married. The parties lived together, acquired property together, held themselves out as married, and had three children. The warranty deed to their family home granted them ownership as husband and wife. Additionally, on tax returns they were filed as “married.” In February of 2017, Christina discovered that Aldrich had requested sexually explicit photographs from another woman. On December 2, 2018, the couple separated.
In 2019 Petitioner filed a Petition for Dissolution in the Circuit Court of Johnson County, Missouri. Respondent asserted, unbeknownst to Petitioner, in his responsive pleading that there was no “valid” marriage since the parties’ marriage license had never been filed and was therefore invalid at the time of inception. Respondent challenged the trial court’s jurisdiction to dissolve the marriage on the grounds that the marriage never existed.
The trial court applied principles of equitable estoppel, concluded that Respondent was estopped from denying the marriage, and issued a dissolution judgment in June 2020 that, in pertinent part, divided the property of the parties and awarded maintenance to Petitioner.
Respondent filed an appeal on the grounds that stating the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter a judgment on an invalid marriage and that he did not comply with the requirements of RSMO 451.040.1 which requires an issuance of a marriage. The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling.
The Appellate Opinion noted that the state of Missouri has prohibited common law marriages since 1921 and has required solemnization and license requirements. Nonetheless, the Appellate Court emphasized that “Despite the abolition of common-law marriage in Missouri, ‘a presumption of a ceremonial marriage arises upon a showing of open cohabitation, declaration and conduct by the parties and general reputation, despite [an] inability to show a marriage license or any record of the issuance of one. . . This presumption applies in any case where the validity of the marriage is challenged.’”
In the instant case, the parties had a marriage ceremony, attended by family and friends, held themselves out as a married couple, had children together and indicated themselves as married on property documents and tax returns and celebrated wedding anniversaries.
The Appellate Court also applied the principle of equitable estoppel and emphasized that, “What is most important is the principle that the spouse who produced the misleading situation cannot, as against persons who believed in good faith that the marriage was valid, establish its invalidity when it becomes advantageous.” In re Marriage of Sumners, 645 S.W.2d 205, 209 (Mo. App. S.D. 1983).
The Court also noted that “despite Respondent’s current claim that he was never married to Petitioner, he did not challenge the validity of the marriage at any point preceding the commencement of this litigation. In fact, Respondent held himself out as married and fully availed himself of the many benefits of marriage—for twenty-seven years.
Trial Court Ruling Affirmed.
