Peete v. Peete (2023): the Conditions of Annulment

By now, regular readers of our blog know that we’ve covered some pretty unusual fact patterns. We’ve discussed dozens and dozens of cases, and frequently we’ve witnessed scenarios that are quite surprising in their improbability. In the past, we’ve referenced the concept of annulment and gone over some of the basic mechanics of how this idea operates in the State of Maryland. Each state has its own particular laws when it comes to handling annulments; certain states, for example, have fewer conditions on which annulment may be granted, and certain states are more or less strict in their application of these conditions. Recently, an annulment case showed up which highlights the importance of asserting rights in a timely fashion; in some cases, a right or privilege can disappear because it isn’t exercised in a timely manner. Let’s explore this recent case in a bit of case.

Overview of the Case

In this case, Peete v. Peete (2023), the primary couple, was married for 4 years before they separated in 1975. Although the couple separated, no formal divorce was sought initially. Later, in 1991, the husband sought a formal divorce in a D.C. court. The husband’s divorce petition went through successfully, and he then remarried to his second wife. The husband then died in 2007, and four years later in 2011 the first wife attempted to declare the second marriage invalid (on the basis of bigamy). The wife argued that, because the divorce action in D.C. wasn’t handled properly, no valid divorce was attained and, consequently, no valid second marriage ever occurred. The wife claimed that, since the second marriage constituted bigamy, the second marriage should be annulled, and she should receive her equitable portion of the husband’s pension.

Laches & the Principle of Timeliness

Ultimately, the first wife’s arguments and reasoning were struck down by the Maryland courts. In rejecting her position, Maryland courts invoked the concept of “laches,” which essentially refers to the principle of invoking rights or privileges in a timely manner. In some cases, if a person delays invoking a particular legal right or privilege, this delay can result in the right or privilege being denied or lost. This was the reason given by the court for the first wife’s failure in this case: the court determined that, at a minimum, the first wife was aware of the second marriage at least since 2007, the year of the husband’s passing; since she was aware for a minimum of four years before pursuing the annulment, the concept of laches could be applied. Significantly, when the first wife sought the annulment, a major motivation was the acquisition of a portion of the husband’s pension. This motivation, combined with the fact that there was a sizable delay, was sufficient to overcome the first wife’s argument.

Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Information

As usual, if the first wife had obtained good counsel, this situation likely could’ve been avoided. If you’d like to learn more or need assistance with a case, give the Murphy Law Firm a call today at 240-493-9116.

‍