Brewer v. Miller

Tennessee Court of Appeals · Family Law

Family Lawdivorce property settlementannulmentremarriageannulmentvoid marriagevoidable marriagerelation back doctrine

Facts

The parties' final divorce decree incorporated a property settlement agreement stating that if the wife remarried, her right to continue residing in the parties' home would terminate and the residence would be immediately sold with net proceeds equally divided. The defendant later remarried, but she asserted that the marriage was annulled and declared void ab initio, so she claimed there had been no valid remarriage and that her right to remain in the home continued. The trial court accepted that position and denied the plaintiff's request to force the sale. The annulment decree showed that the second marriage was annulled because it was never consummated.

Issue

Whether the defendant's contractual right under the divorce decree to reside in the former marital home was revived by annulment of her second marriage. More specifically, the question was whether an annulled second marriage counted as a remarriage terminating that right when the second marriage was merely voidable rather than void from the beginning.

Rule

The better-reasoned rule distinguishes between second marriages that are void and those that are voidable. If the second marriage is void from the beginning, annulment may revive rights from the prior marriage because the parties stand as if no second marriage existed; but if the second marriage is merely voidable, it is valid and binding until annulled, and a voluntary remarriage of that kind extinguishes alimony, support, or other benefits from the prior marriage that were decreed to terminate upon remarriage.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A divorce decree entered in Nashville provides that if Dana Cole remarries, her exclusive right to live in the former marital townhouse ends and the property must be sold. Two years later, Dana voluntarily marries Victor Lane in Memphis, but the marriage is later annulled because the couple never consummated it.

Can Dana successfully argue that the annulment restored her right to stay in the townhouse?

Explanation. The majority adopted the rule distinguishing void from voidable second marriages. A voidable marriage is valid and binding until annulled, so a voluntary remarriage of that kind extinguishes prior-marriage benefits decreed to end upon remarriage. Nonconsummation was specifically treated as making the second marriage voidable, not void. Therefore, the later annulment does not revive Dana's decree-based housing right. (Derived from Brewer v. Miller (n.d.).)