MONA DENYSE BAUMGARTH, APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLES BAUMGARTH, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Mona Baumgarth appeals a summary judgment that voided her marriage to Charles Baumgarth on grounds of bigamy. The court reversed, finding genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment, including questions about the validity of Mona's prior marriage and Charles's knowledge of it.
Summary judgment was inappropriate because genuine issues of material fact existed that precluded its entry. Factual questions remained regarding whether the prior marriage was valid, whether Charles had knowledge of the prior marriage, whether he accepted it as unlawful, and whether he should be estopped from asserting it.
[1] A marriage is void if one party is already legally married to another person at the time of the subsequent marriage.
[2] A party may be estopped from asserting the invalidity of a marriage if they had knowledge of a prior impediment and accepted the subsequent marriage.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Mona contends that there were genuine issues of material fact existing that precluded entry of summary judgment. We agree and reverse.”
Establishes the court's holding that summary judgment was improper due to factual disputes.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMona was allegedly married to Stephen Griffith before marrying Charles Baumgarth in 1985. The Griffith marriage was never dissolved or annulled at the…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Validity Of Marriage cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is a timely appeal from a final summary judgment entered in favor of appel-lee, Charles Baumgarth, in an action brought by Charles seeking relief from his obligations of support under a final judgment of dissolution on the ground that the marriage was invalid due to bigamy on the part of appellant, Mona Baumgarth.
Mona contends that there were genuine issues of material fact existing that precluded entry of summary judgment. We agree and reverse.
Briefly, prior to this marriage between Mona and Charles, Mona had allegedly been married to Stephen Griffith. That marriage had not been dissolved nor annulled at the time Mona and Charles were married. In September, 1985, a final judgment was entered dissolving this marriage between Mona and Charles. Said judgment incorporated a separation and property settlement agreement providing for alimony and child support. When Charles failed to make the payments as required by the judgment, Mona resorted to the court for enforcement thereof. Charles responded by seeking relief from the judgment based upon Mona’s alleged fraud on Charles and the court in that her prior marriage to Griffith had never been dissolved. Finally, in April, 1986, Mona obtained a final judgment annulling the alleged marriage to Griffith.
Charles filed a motion for summary judgment, which alleges that no issue of fact exists because, at the time of this marriage, Mona remained married to Griffith; this marriage was a legal nullity; and the court should vacate the final judgment of dissolution entered between Mona and Charles as well as the separation agreement of the parties.
Some of the questions of fact remaining are whether Mona’s alleged marriage to Griffith was in fact and law a valid marriage rendering Mona incapable of contracting a valid marriage with Charles; also, whether Charles was aware of the alleged prior marriage to Griffith. Mona says he was; Charles denies it. There was conflicting evidence and inferences that could be drawn on the issues of the validity of the prior marriage, the validity of the later marriage, the existence of fraud on the part of Mona, and on Charles’s knowledge and acceptance of the prior marriage as being unlawful or invalid (such that he should be estopped from asserting the pri-or marriage as an impediment to make his marriage to Mona void).
Our review of the record convinces us that summary judgment was premature and that appellant was entitled to a trial of .the issues. Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.
HERSEY, C.J., and DOWNEY and DELL, JJ., concur.