Never divorced wife 2

[CharlotteDTx]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Texas
I married a man five years ago who claimed on the marriage license he had been married twice before.

After the marriage; I found out he had actually been married five previous times AND never divorced number two. In 2015; he finally divorced #2 Without her knowledge. Is our marriage legal? And, if not; how do I have it declared void?

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

No, your marriage is not legal. You need a judge to declare it void officially.

 

[Zigner]

No, your marriage is not legal. You need a judge to declare it void officially.

Not necessarily true.

Sec. 6.202. MARRIAGE DURING EXISTENCE OF PRIOR MARRIAGE. (a) A marriage is void if entered into when either party has an existing marriage to another person that has not been dissolved by legal action or terminated by the death of the other spouse.
(b) The later marriage that is void under this section becomes valid when the prior marriage is dissolved if, after the date of the dissolution, the parties have lived together as husband and wife and represented themselves to others as being married.

[SUB](from: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/FA/htm/FA.6.htm)[/SUB]

 

[singlepapa43]

Anullment

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Texas
I married a man five years ago who claimed on the marriage license he had been married twice before.

After the marriage; I found out he had actually been married five previous times AND never divorced number two. In 2015; he finally divorced #2 Without her knowledge. Is our marriage legal? And, if not; how do I have it declared void?

First off, I am not a lawyer so take my advice with a grain of salt.
From what you said in your post, you already divorced him prior to him divorcing wife #2. Regardless, Texas statutes disallow your marriage and it is null and void because (a) he lied on the application for a marriage license and (b) he was still legally married.
Not only will you be able to have the marriage annulled, he is guilty of a misdemeanor under Texas law for falsifying information on the license application. He may also be liable for any damages he caused you financially as a result of his lies under civil law.
Consult with your County prosecutor and see if they will help in your situation. In the meantime, consult the following link regarding Texas marriage statutes.
http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=texas+marriage+statutes&d=4878113720762404&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=hmeu0EV8XE2qTwIsGxn3k2TrFlAHHDeu

 

[latigo]

First off, I am not a lawyer so take my advice with a grain of salt.
From what you said in your post, you already divorced him prior to him divorcing wife #2. Regardless, Texas statutes disallow your marriage and it is null and void because (a) he lied on the application for a marriage license and (b) he was still legally married.
Not only will you be able to have the marriage annulled, he is guilty of a misdemeanor under Texas law for falsifying information on the license application. He may also be liable for any damages he caused you financially as a result of his lies under civil law.
Consult with your County prosecutor and see if they will help in your situation. In the meantime, consult the following link regarding Texas marriage statutes.
http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=texas+marriage+statutes&d=4878113720762404&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=hmeu0EV8XE2qTwIsGxn3k2TrFlAHHDeu

Your research comes up a bit short. You overlooked the principle of "condonation".

Because of it this woman's marital circumstances do not qualify her for either a decree annulling the marriage or one declaring it void. Not under present Texas law.

However, your candidness in admitting the absence of professional credentials is appreciated. Too bad it isn't contagious.

 

[singlepapa43]

condonation

Your research comes up a bit short. You overlooked the principle of "condonation".

Because of it this woman's marital circumstances do not qualify her for either a decree annulling the marriage or one declaring it void. Not under present Texas law.

However, your candidness in admitting the absence of professional credentials is appreciated. Too bad it isn't contagious.

From the authors original post, it is my understanding she had no knowledge of the last three previous marriages or the fact that the groom was still legally married to wife #2. If so, condonation was not present because she had no knowledge of the circumstances until after she divorced the other party. Being deceived does not equate to condoning his behavior.
If, however, she was aware of it you are correct. I'm admittedly not informed of changes to Texas law, I just pulled up the statutes from the web in an effort to help. I can understand her frustration with being deceived, especially if the husband is a serial marriage predator taking advantage of the women's financial resources.

 

[justalayman]

From the authors original post, it is my understanding she had no knowledge of the last three previous marriages or the fact that the groom was still legally married to wife #2. If so, condonation was not present because she had no knowledge of the circumstances until after she divorced the other party. Being deceived does not equate to condoning his behavior.
If, however, she was aware of it you are correct. I'm admittedly not informed of changes to Texas law, I just pulled up the statutes from the web in an effort to help. I can understand her frustration with being deceived, especially if the husband is a serial marriage predator taking advantage of the women's financial resources.

Did you read zigner's post? If they lived together as husband and wife after the divorce their marriage is now valid. Basicslly it becomes a common law marriage which still needs a divorce to end.

 

[singlepapa43]

Did you read zigner's post? If they lived together as husband and wife after the divorce their marriage is now valid. Basicslly it becomes a common law marriage which still needs a divorce to end.

Yes I did. And the author said the ex divorced wife #2 in 2015. She made no mention of them living together after he divorced wife #2, and apparently divorced him prior to his legal divorce from wife #2. He committed fraud and polygamy, in my opinion, from the information present.

 

[I'mTheFather]

Yes I did. He is quoting California law and this woman lives in Texas. Each state has it's own governing statutes. And the author said the ex divorced wife #2 in 2015. She made no mention of them living together after he divorced wife #2, and apparently divorced him prior to his legal divorce from wife #2. He committed fraud and polygamy, in my opinion, from the information present.

Where does OP say she's divorced? Why would she want to void the marriage if she's divorced?

 

[singlepapa43]

Where does OP say she's divorced? Why would she want to void the marriage if she's divorced?

In her second paragraph she states "After the marriage; I discovered...". An annulment is a different legal standpoint from a divorce. An annulment means the marriage was never valid. Perhaps this "gentleman" won a cash award or property in the divorce which an annulment would revoke. If they were not legally married he would not be legally entitled to a division of assets she owned prior to "marrying" him.
I edited my last post because Zigner was indeed quoting Texas statutes. My apologies for the mistake Zigner.

 

[I'mTheFather]

In her second paragraph she states "After the marriage; I discovered...". An annulment is a different legal standpoint from a divorce. An annulment means the marriage was never valid. Perhaps this "gentleman" won a cash award or property in the divorce which an annulment would revoke. If they were not legally married he would not be legally entitled to a division of assets she owned prior to "marrying" him.
I edited my last post because Zigner was indeed quoting Texas statutes. My apologies for the mistake Zigner.

What are you talking about??? She's still married to the guy!

 

[justalayman]

Yes I did. And the author said the ex divorced wife #2 in 2015. She made no mention of them living together after he divorced wife #2, and apparently divorced him prior to his legal divorce from wife #2. He committed fraud and polygamy, in my opinion, from the information present.

Nor did she say they didn't live together. That is why I said, if they continued to live together, the marriage was validated by law. Based on that, one can extend it to mean that if they didn't live together after the divorce to #2, it is not valid.

 

[singlepapa43]

What are you talking about??? She's still married to the guy!

That's not what I gathered from her post. I understood it as she only found out he was not divorced from wife #2 until after SHE divorced him. If she continued living with and being "married" to him AFTER discovering he was still legally married to wife #2 that changes things of course. Just going off the limited information given by the original poster.

 

[I'mTheFather]

That's not what I gathered from her post. I understood it as she only found out he was not divorced from wife #2 until after SHE divorced him. If she continued living with and being "married" to him AFTER discovering he was still legally married to wife #2 that changes things of course. Just going off the limited information given by the original poster.

The limited information was pretty clear. You ought to go back to your bankruptcy thread.

 

[justalayman]

That's not what I gathered from her post. I understood it as she only found out he was not divorced from wife #2 until after SHE divorced him. If she continued living with and being "married" to him AFTER discovering he was still legally married to wife #2 that changes things of course. Just going off the limited information given by the original poster.

until the OP adds some info, there is no way to know. It is not clear whether she continued to live with guy or not from what was posted. If she did, well, she screwed herself if she wants a divorce or voiding of the marriage. If she left before the divorce to #2, then she's home free since by law her marriage was not valid.

what's that fancy term latigo tosses out once in awhile? I think it's void ab initio


Now, I do see where Latigo has stated the marriage is in fact not void under Texas current law. I presume he knows something I don't know. Well, I'm sure there are a lot of things he knows that I don't know but regarding this issue, if he has something that says the marriage is not void, then that's what I'm talking about here.