Re-examining standing of heirs and beneficiaries to challenge decedent’s marriage after death

Terry L. Turnipseed (Assistant Professor of Law, Syracuse University College of Law) has recently posted on SSRN an updated version of his article entitled How Do I Love Thee, Let Me Count the Days: Deathbed Marriages in America which also appears in 96 Ky. L.J. 275 (2007-2008).

Here is the abstract of his article:

Should you be able to marry someone who has only days to live? If so, should the government award the surviving spouse the many property rights that ordinarily flow from marriage?

In almost every state, the only person allowed to challenge the validity of a marriage (or, by extension, the property consequences thereof) after the death of one of the spouses is the surviving spouse! Seems incredible, does it not? The expectant heirs of a dying man (or woman) who marries on his (or her) deathbed cannot challenge the marriage post-death. Ironically, the one person allowed to challenge is the only person who has absolutely no motivation to do so.

How did this rule come about? What, if anything, should we do to change it?

This article explores these and other related questions, including a proposed theoretical framework for a model act giving heirs and beneficiaries standing to sue in order to negate the property consequences that flow from marriage, depending on the level of mental capacity at the time of the marriage.

Individuals on their deathbeds have just as much right to marry as anyone, and if competent and under no duress, the parties to the marriage certainly should have protection under the law. Protection should be appropriately shaped to avoid harassment of widows and widowers.

However, I simply cannot see a valid argument for denying a decedent-spouse's heirs (those who would take the decedent's property if he or she died unmarried and intestate) and beneficiaries (those who would take under the decedent's valid will, if any, absent a spousal election) the right to challenge the property consequences of a suspect marriage, especially when that challenge is based on traditional grounds that might naturally flow from a deathbed marriage.

Ironically, a decedent on their deathbed may not have the legal capacity to enter into a contract but can get married. It is only reasonable that these poor people and their heirs and beneficiaries should have state protection against a surviving spouse taking some or all of the decedent's property. Protection of heirs and beneficiaries is necessary where a surviving spouse may have few legitimate motives for entering into a deathbed marriage, particularly in light of the surviving spouse's ability to take some or all of the decedent's property.

The current incentives are off kilter. A greedy potential spouse has every incentive to find a minister or officer of the law willing to marry them off to a wealthy sick person and no legal incentives not to try it. No matter how ugly the situation, a marriage becomes set in stone with no person other than the surviving spouse allowed standing to seek redress in a court of law upon the death of one of the spouses. Allowing, in an appropriate way, heirs and beneficiaries to challenge the property consequences of a suspect marriage puts in place the proper disincentives before attempting to take advantage of one of feeble mind and spirit.

If these property consequences are allowed to stand, victims will continue to abound in deathbed marriage situations where consent is lacking: the decedent, her family, and society generally. Just imagine how you would feel losing an expectancy in such circumstances.

Note that the 2007 Texas Legislature added Probate Code § 47A to authorize a court, under certain circumstances, to deem a decedent’s current marriage void for lack of mental capacity even after the decedent has died.  Acts 2007, 80th Leg., ch. 1170, § 4.01.  This section was designed to “undo” marriages entered into due to the actions of conniving and/or abusive caregivers.

1.  Types of voidable marriages

a.  Proceeding pending at time of death

If a Family Code proceeding to void a marriage based on lack of mental capacity is pending at the time of death (or if the court has been asked to do so in a pending guardianship proceeding), the court may declare the marriage void despite the death of the decedent.  The court must apply the same standards as for an annulment under the Family Code.

b.  Proceeding not pending at time of death

If a proceeding to void a marriage based on lack of mental capacity is not pending at the time of death, the court may nonetheless deem the marriage void if all of the following conditions are met:

• The decedent entered into the marriage within three years of the decedent’s death.
• An interested person files an application to void the marriage on the basis of lack of mental capacity within one year of the decedent’s death.
• The court finds that the decedent lacked the mental capacity to consent to the marriage and understand the nature of any marriage ceremony that might have occurred.
• The court does not determine that after the date of the marriage, the decedent gained the mental capacity to recognize the marriage relationship and actually recognized the relationship.

2.  Result if marriage deemed void

The surviving partner of the void marriage is not considered as the decedent’s surviving spouse for any purpose under Texas law.  For example, the surviving partner would not be able to receive an intestate share of the estate or claim homestead rights.

3.  Effective date

The new statute applies not only a decedent who dies on or after September 1, 2007, but also to decedents who died earlier if the probate or administration is pending on September 1, 2007 or is commenced on or after September 1, 2007.