FMSC487 Exam 1 Study Guide

Chapter 1: Intro
Plaintiff – party bringing suit

Defendant – party being sued

Appellant – party that brings an appeal bc lost on issue in lower ct.

Appellee – party who appeal is brought against

Federalism – sharing of power btwn Fed & St. ct.

Stare Decisis – “to adhere to that which has been decided”

Precedent – past cases that are subsequently followed

Certiorari – write of review or a petition for review to US ct.

Jurisdiction – which court should a case be heard in

*Ct for family law: St Ct.

Hierarchy of Laws:
1. Constitution
2. Fed law on fed issues
3. St. law on St. issues ~ statutes & codes
4. Local community laws ~ covenants

Chapter 2: Family

Anastasi v. Anastasi – 1982 – family cases that cross st. lines are to be decided @ st. ct.; st. cts. are to
determine cases on family & domestic matters

The Domestic Relations Exception – generally family law cases  decided @ St. Ct. level

Form family – family related by blood, marriage or adoption

- City of Laude v. Horn – 1986 – blended family does NOT meet form family definition &
community ordinances should be respected

- 2006 Black Jack Missouri – form family that did NOT fit the zoning laws, the city amended its
rule to have a more expansive definition of family

Functional family – group that functions as a family; functional equivalent of a family

- PG County v. Greenbelt Homes – Unmarried couple wanted to move into a co-op that’s only for
singles and they said it was going against the marriage discrimination laws, but the co-op wins
because they’re not married so they don't fit the definition
o Anti-discrim laws there to protect married couples, NOT unmarried

- Henderson v. Henderson – 1952 – MD does NOT recognize common law marriages

 - Braschi v. Stahl Assoc. Co – 1989 – 2 male cohabitants found to be a functional family; life
partners, BUT unable to marry

Single Housekeeping Unit –

Chapter 3: Private Ordering & Cohabitation

Private Ordering – structuring personal relationships to satisfy personal needs/desires

3 types of contracts:
1. Written – most common
2. Oral – need witnesses
3. Implied – based on behavior

Marvin 1 – Oral agreements can be enforceable to an extent, not specifically based on illicit sexual
services. People who cohabitant outside of marriage are able to receive financial compensation after a
break up

Marvin 2 – The plaintiff is entitled to compensation under implied contact theory (took the salary of her
highest paying job)
- Quantum Meruit – as much as one deserves

Marvin 3 – Celebrity, disagrees w/ Marvin 2 because Ct. thinks she benefited from his celebrity & $$$ is
taken back

Hewitt v. Hewitt – 1979 – cohabitating couple 15 yrs, 2 kids, she thought they were married & wanted ½
property; do NOT receive half the property accumulated during the relationship during split, as a way to
encourage marriage, bc of policy against illicit cohabitation & not enforceable bc they weren’t married

Watts v. Watts – 1987 – cohabitating couple of 12 yrs w/kids splits & some compensation is due bc
express/implied contract & unjust enrichment

Crowley v. Knapp – 1980 - Ct said family = single housekeeping unit & serving that public policy favoring
the free & unrestricted use of property

Warden v. Warden – 1984 – end of marriage property division statutes apply to cohabitating couples also

Consortium – love, companionship, society, sexual relations, support, services & solace

- Lozoya v. Sanchez – cohabitation couples can get consortium compensation

Corsell v. Greenwald – 2016 – TBD; determine extent to which relationship goes beyond just a sexual
relationship

Chapter 4: Family Law Contracts

Types of contracts/agreements:
- Relationship Agreement – for ppl who are NOT planning to live w/each other or marry

- Cohabitation Agreements – for ppl who live together, NOT in anticipation of marriage; if non-
sex consideration  most likely enforce agreement
 o Jones v. Daly – 1981 – if services connected to providing sexual services, agreement is
void

o Steelman v. Hirsch - Romantic partners who exchanged vows, lived together & worked
together in a dog-grooming business. Tammy Steelman sues Michelle for compensation
for work that was performed in reliance on his promises of additional compensation.
Could file under dealing w/ dissolution of domestic & business partnerships.
 H: Fed Ct. canNOT hear St. Ct. claims & under fed law, partner NOT an employee,
so NO compensation

o Posik v. Layton – Ct. does NOT condone homosexual relationships, BUT if a cohabitation
agreement is about more than sex, it’s enforceable

- Prenuptial Agreements – made in contemplation of marriage to determine what happens after

marriage occurs

o Blige v. Blige – disclosure of all assets in a prenup is necessary; she gets $ bc she did not
sign w/all info
 H: Failed the Scherer Test  so she gets to keep $160k jury awarded to her

o Petrakis Case – invalid prenup bc fraudulently induced; husband fraudulently makes

her sign bc he said he would tear it up after they had kids, which was NOT written in the
prenup
 Power imbalance issues

o Azarova v. Schmidt – invalid contract as mail order bride who does NOT speak English
signs prenup under duress w/lang barriers

o Simeone v. Simeone– 1990 – power imbalance w/23yr old nurse & 39yr old doctor
$200/wk limit w/$25,000 max; Ct rejected paternalistic presumptions/protections that
arose to shelter women from the inferiorities & incapacities which they were perceived
as having in earlier times

- Postnuptial Agreements – exchange for someone to stay in marriage/give it another try

o Historically not enforced, BUT today it’s ok consideration/value is staying in marriage

o Posner v. Posner – 1970 – post-marital agreement case; marriage settlement

agreements are enforced like any contract BUT can be revised if conditions change

o Button v. Button – contracts can be modified to take into account changes that occur
since agreement was made if necessary under equity; wife had to go to nursing home &
needed $ help

o Del Vicchio v. Del Vicchio – 1962 – prescribed the rules by which the validity of
antenuptial/postnuptial property settlement agreements should be tested

o Allen v. Allen – 1933 – general rule: obligation to pay alimony dies w/the person, BUT
agreements of the husband to bind his representatives to do this have been upheld, and
there is no prohibition against them in this St (FL)
  Agreements relating to divorce that are illegal w/regard to public policy that
conceal true cause, etc.

o Hudson v. Hudson – 1960 – Ct. discarded the contrary-to-public-policy rule

o Sanders v. Sanders – 1955 – provision for forfeiture applicable only if divorce suit not
filed in good faith  so contract not promotive of divorce & was valid

o LeFevers v. LeFevers – 1966 – contested proper interpretation of contract where wife

would get her own property rights back & only ½ of joint net-gain if they divorced

o Re Muxlow’s Estate – 1962 – married, separated but never divorced & man died; issue
of claim to his estate on basis of the antenuptial agreement they entered into a few days
before they married; Ct upheld agreement bc no effective provision in it that induced
separation/divorce

o Strandberg v. Strandberg – 1967 – antenuptial agreement held void; BUT could be

admitted into evidence & considered for limited purpose as 1 circumstance in
determining the equities of division

o Schulz v. Fox – 1959 – summarizes trend in recent postnuptial cases; about land in
Montana forest and threatened foreclosure sale of mortgaged property by soon to be
ex-wife; Ct needs to see proper grounds in the agreement or else it’s void, but property
is not held void unless brought about by duress/coercion

o Hengel v. Hengel – 1985 – parties interpreted the statute to require the validity of
agreement to be determined @ time executed

- Separation/Settlement Agreement – after a legal separation in anticipation of divorce

o Originally voided, now useful tool as a way to avoid Ct.

o Gonzales v. Green – 2006 – same sex marriages do NOT have to be recognized by all
states, determined on St.-by-St. basis, so separation agreement is void
 No marriage  so invalid, BUT upheld separation agreement as contract that
ends relationship & plaintiff (the student) gets to keep $780k

o Gluckman v. Collins – Hilda has to pay Claire as separation agreement states Hilda
guarantees Claire supports payments if Gerald fails to make them

Chapter 5: Impact of Const Issues on Family Law

Constitution – supreme law of land

1960 SC changes  right to privacy & freedom to marry

1. Right to Privacy

Griswold v. Connecticut – 1965 – St. law prohibited the use of contraceptives yet SC found a right to
privacy in Const that gov’t should stay out of personal private business, including the decision to have a
child; right to privacy w/in marriage
Eisenstadt v. Baird – 1972 – single ppl have same rights as married couples & are allowed to decide to use
contraceptives; violates 14th Amend (equal protection)
 “Marital couple is NOT a real entity, BUT an association of 2 individuals”

2. Freedom to Marry

Loving v. VA – 1967 – SC found VA law that prohibited whites from marrying outside of their race
unconst; found a fundamental right to marry w/out gov’t interference

1982 Bob Jones University– Univ. during Reagan Admin appealed up to the US SC bc wanted to keep its
IRIS non-profit status & continue separation; 8-1 denied Bob Jones arguments

Zablocki v. Redhail – 1978 – WI law prohibiting individuals to marry if they owe child support as unconst
bc fundamental right to marry

Chapter 6: Marriage Equality & Same-Sex Marriage

3 ways to look @ marriage satisfaction in the Ch. 6 Canada Study ~ lang of marriage, being out &
rights/responsibilities

Domestic Partnership – effort to support couples that choose not to marry

- Tyma v. Montgomery County – 2001 – the Ct. allowed Takoma Park to adopt an ordinance
extending similar benefits to domestic partners of its employees as it did to its married
employees even though its St. gov’t did NOT

Reciprocal Beneficiaries – limited financial benefits to same-sex couples

- Baehr v. Mike – 1992 – Hawaii 1st ever to rule that excluding same-sex couples from marriage =
discrim based on improper sexual classifications

Civil Union – all the rights & benefits of marriage to same-sex couples

- Singer v. Hara – 1986 – found marriage as a union btwn a man & woman & the concept of
marriage as having children; not a denial based on basis of sex, BUT on physical characteristics

- Bowers v. Hardwick – 1986 – found Const does NOT give fundamental right to engage in
sodomy BUT does not decide if law is wrong

- Lawrence v. Texas – 2003 – found same-sex couples have right to make own decisions on
intimate conduct; acknowledges privacy of individuals in their own home; overruled Bowers v.
Hardwick

Baker v. State – 1999 – ruled that denying same-sex couples marriage licenses or the opp to enter into a
similarly legally recognized relationship violated Vermont’s Const (under its Common Benefits Clause)

Burrell v. Hobby – 2014 – ruled that requiring “family owned corporations to pay for insurance coverage
for contraception under the Affordable Care Act” violated a Fed Law protecting religious freedom

Goodridge v. Dept of Public Health – 2003 – MA as 1st St to recognize same sex marriages
In re Marriage Case – 2008 – held that the St’s current law limiting marriage to heterosexual applicants
violated CA Const

Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – No St. req to recognize another St.’s recognition of same-sex marriage

Most like marriage = civil union

Least like marriage = domestic partnership

Strauss v. Horton – 2009 – held that marriages, which occurred before Prop 8 passed, = valid

US v. Windsor – 2013 – gay couple married in Canada as NY did NOT allow same-sex marriage. Woman
dies & leaves estate to Wife. Wife deemed not a surviving spouse as not married under fed law. SC
invalidates DOMA’s limited definition of marriage & requires fed gov’t to recognize all valid same-sex
marriages

Judge Roy Moore – wrote to 68 county justices who were responsible for giving out marriage licenses &
told them it was unconst to give out the licenses, citing the 10 commandments (religion)

Masterpiece Cake Shop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission – 2018 – US SC says it’s ok to not bake cake
for gay couple; Colorado CADA law

Obergefell v. Hodges – 2015 – same-sex couple gets married in MD while 1 is on deathbed, BUT Ohio fails
to list him as husband on death certificate; fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples
under due process & equal protection clause

Chapter 7: Courtship

Wightman v. Coates – 1818 – case recognizing a cause for action for breach of
an engagement w/deserted female; altho today most St’s have eliminated this cause of action

Miller v. Ratner – 1997 – after cohabitating, she was diagnosed w/Cancer; after initially supporting her,
he kicked her out; MD does NOT have claim for breach of promise to marry, she was NOT entitled to any
compensation

Kline v. Ansell – 1980 – Ct of Appeals abolished the tort of criminal conversation

Gifts in Contemplation of Marriage – engagement ring

 Historically: Ct’s looked @ fault  whoever’s NOT @ fault for breakup keeps ring
 Modern Ct’s: generally do not; treat ring as conditional gift  no marriage, return ring

- Brown v. Thomas – 1985 – after breaking up, man files for return of engagement ring;
dismissed case as it would discourage marriages to take place that should NOT happen
o Appellate Ct let case go forward; diff from breach of promise to marry bc no emotional
distress claims  use conditional gift

- Clippard v. Pfetterkorn – 2005 – expensive engagement ring, proposed days before Xmas; ring
is tied to Xmas gift so she keeps it; contrast w/ Brown v. Thomas case
 - Lindh v. Surman – 1999 – expensive ring returned upon break-up; couple reconciled & re-
engage; she cheats & refuses to return ring; He keeps ring as it’s deemed conditional gift based
on condition to marry & he gets ring back bc of no fault rule

- Hess v. Johnson – 2007 - woman him dumped before wedding. He gave her gifts, personalized
ring, trips, & got a vasectomy. H: no breach of contract, no conditional gift, no wedding date
was affirmed- Ct doesn't want to force marriage

- Kim Kardashian - $2M ring, she would NOT return after requesting divorce after 72 days. Since
they got married, condition was fulfilled she would NOT have to return ring

- Gikas v. Nicholis – 1950 – Ct permitted an action to recover engagement ring

- Kozlowski v. Koslowski – 1979 – NJ Ct approved breach of contract actions btwn adults who
contract to live together, if contract is in no way based on promise to marry; palimony case

- Jackson v. Brown – 1995 – abolished cause of action for breach of promise to marry, but
remedies may still exist in some cases

- Maiorana v. Rojas – 2004 – ring NOT conditional gift when given on donee’s bday

- Fanning v. Iversen – 1995 – circumstances surrounding gift of $ implied a condition of

marriage where check memo said $ was for wedding expenses

- Gilbert v. Barkes – 1999 – recovery is Unavail when no wedding date set  not serious

- Fierro v. Hoel & Heiman v. Parrish – once est abt marriage, engagement ring = conditional gift

Chapter 8: Ways to Strengthen Marriage?

Achieving marital status – get marriage license & then return it; age limit & physical capacity

- Covenant Marriage – contacts that they would only divorce based on agreed limited grounds,
usually adultery; makes divorce more difficult by requiring fault; often religious attempt

- Term/Contract Marriage – spouses agrees to a set term or period for their marriage; when
term is up, renew/recommit marriage or let relationship end; avoids divorce so it lowers rates

- Geriatric Marriage - modification of marriage that allows for older people to enter into marital
union faster & w/ fewer incidences

Chapter 9: Marriage

Maynard v. Hill – 1888 – the Ct defined marriage as a relationship btwn 3 parties: 2 spouses & the St.

Hyde v. Hyde – 1866 – marriage defined as voluntary union for life of 1 man & 1 woman, to the exclusion
of all others

Proxy Marriage – allows 2 ppl to go through valid marriage ceremony even though they’re in a diff
jurisdiction @ time; someone stands in as a proxy
 - Torres v. Torres – 1989 - proxy marriage takes place and man brings wife to USA; later denies
the validity of marriage; proxy marriage can be valid w/ evidence of commitment

Putative – statutory device meant to prevent hardship when one or both people are ignorant of some
impediment that invalidates marriage

Common Law – Automatically married after living together for pd of time, most states repealed it, no
ceremony/license required, no "this type" divorce (just regular divorce)

- Krug v. Krug – 1974 – woman violated terms of her divorce, which required she not marry
w/in 60 days of divorce order. New husband died in war. His parents challenged validity of the
marriage when wife made inheritance claim. H: Couple was common law married & she’s
allowed to inherit

- Meister v. Moore – 1877 – common law marriage a way to St to impose marriage upon couples
when they had failed to do so

- Boswell v. Boswell – 1986 – recognized woman’s cohabitation as common law marriage so she
could inherit from her dead husband

Void – invalid marriages even w/out judicial declaration because if offend some major public policy
concern

Voidable – offend a lesser policy deemed valid unless it is set aside through timely annulment
proceedings

Annulment – declaration by Ct that marriage never came into existence due to some legal impediment
existing at the ceremony of marriage

- Blair v. Blair - Husband & wife married over 20 yrs & wife wants divorce. Husband appeals for
an annulment because he was "induced” into marriage by wife when he was told that her child
was his child, but it was not. Ct denies H appeal because he was not able to prove that he was
induced into marriage & Ct decided that he would have married her regardless

When canNOT marry/grounds for annulment?

- Minimum Age Requirement: most set @ 18, some as low as 13 w/parental consent

o J.M.H.& Rouse v. Dept of Health and Human Service – 2006 - prisoner on charges of
sexual assault of a minor escapes and appears by phone to support his marriage claim
to a 15 year old, w/ whom he began living w/ at age 14. Mother consented to marriage
but girl was ward of the state they were deemed common law married so they did not
need state or parental approval

o Koso – Matthew (22) married pregnant gf (14) in Kansas where it’s ok w/parental
consent; Nebraska charged him w/pedophilia

- Kinship: canNOT marry family; evolutionary reasons too

o CUDDLE – Cousins United to Defeat Discriminating Laws through Education

 o Israel v. Allen – 1978 – you can marry a sister by adoption, just NOT a blood
relationship

- Physical capacity – traditionally, marriage was about reproduction

o Past: prohibited potential genetic defects + epilepsy/communicable diseases
o Today: usual ground is impotency (grounds for annulment)

- Mental Incapacity – IQ and awareness/fully capacitated w/ drugs/alcohol  annulment option

- Effect of existing marriage – bigamy (prior valid marriage invalidates subsequent

marriage)/polygamy (mult marriages in name of religion)

o Ranieri v. Ranieri – 1989 – invalidated marriage performed by Universal Life Church

minister

o Reynolds v. USA – US SC upheld fed law criminalizing polygamy in Utah by Mormon’s

even though it was a religious tenant

o Brown v. Utah – argued Lawrence gave them a right to privacy – stay out of family rel;
H: struck only the part of Utah polygamy law that prohibited cohabitation by unmarried
ppl w/mult sexual partners

o Sister Wives TV Show – 2013 – sued Kody Brown & 4 wives challenged Utah’s criminal
case against them; Ct said he was only married to 1st wife bc others = religious
marriages w/no legal effect; H: struck part of Utah’s anti-polygamy laws, BUT the part
prohibiting polygamy was preserved

o Tom Green v. Utah Video – judge threw out all allegations of religion & said religious
persecution violates 1st Amend
 Belief of freedom to love/marry who you wish; 5 wives; charged w/4 counts of
bigamy ~ impregnating 13yr old before they were married

o State v. Lynch – 1980 – officiant is not recognized by St, therefore Lynch is considered
not married to 2nd woman

- Fraud/Duress

o Blair v. Blair – 2004 – Husband would have married wife regardless of representation
to the son’s paternity; NO annulment granted

o VSJ v. MJB – 1991 – Lied about wanting kids; Ct voided marriage bc of fraud
 Goes to essentials of marriage: reproduction

Kober v. Kober – 1965 – woman found out she was married to an SS officer (Nazi), who would NOT let
her keep her Jewish friends

Posing v. Layton – a support agreement btwn 2 unmarried adults is valid unless it’s inextricably based
upon illicit consideration of sexual services

Shonfield v. Shonfield – marriage is a civil contract  consent & capacity, or else void/voidable