ARK.] LEE V. LEE. 163 LEE V. LEE. 4-3926 Opinion delivered June 24, 1935. DIVORCE—DEFENSE MONEY IN ANNULMENT PROCEEDING.—Where annulment of a marriage is sought by a husband, who admits that a ceremonial marriage took place, but claims it to have been illegal and void, the wife is entitled to a reasonable allowance to enable
164 LEE V. LEE. [191 her to make a proper defense, provided she denies on oath the • allegations on• which such invalidity is based. Appeal from Garland Chancery Court ; Sam-W. Gar-ratt, Chancellor ; affirmed. • Martin, WoottoU & Martin, for appellant. Walter J. Hebert and Murphy & Wood, for appellee. JdnxsoN, C. J. Appellant and• appellee, while _temporarily residing in Hot Springs in August, 1934, were married in conformity to the laws of this State. A few days subsequent thereto -appellant instituted this -annulment proceeding in the Garland Chancery Court in which he alleged that, at the time of the marriage, he was suffering from amnesia which rendered him incapable of contracting a valid marriage. Subsequently; he filed an amendment-to his complaint in which he "alleged that, at the time of hiS marriage to appellee in Arkansas, he bad a living wife—not divorced, living in the State of Florida. Appellee answered the complaint thus:filed, and .denied the material allegations thereof and amendment thereto; arid'also prayed temporary alimony, suit money and -attorney' s'. fees. • The chancellor heard testiniony . upon ap.pellee's prayer for temporary-alimony, snit money and attorney's fees, arid made and 'entered an order allowing her the sum of $109 per month beginning September, 1934, and continuing until the suit was finally terthinated as temporary alimony, and alloWed $200 attorneys' fee's and $25 suit money. • The testimony addnced on behalf of appellee terided to show that she had no property in her oWn right; *and no funds with which to defend the suit instituted by appellant, and that she contracted her marriage with appellant in good faith, and without knowledge of any existing disability in him. to so contract marriage. Appellant's affidavit was filed in support of his contention in which he swore that, at the time of his marriage to ap-pellee in Arkansas, _he had a living wife, not divorced, residing in the State of Florida. This appeal asserts lack of power in the chancery court to make the order of allowances referred to. This contention is grounded upon the proposition that since
AMC] LEE v. LEE. 165 the uncontradicted testimony- of appellant shows that he had .a living wife, not divorced, residing in.the State of Florida at the time of his marriage to appellee in Arkan-sas, the Arkansas marriage contraot is void from -its inception, and no ... marital :rights can be -•prediCated thereon. • • In Gossett v. Gossett, 112. Ark. 47, 164 S. W. 759, we held that, where either party to, a marriage contract . had a living husband or wife, not divorced ut . the time of the subsequent marriage contract; the subsequent .marriage contract , was void and not •werely . voidable. It follows from this that appellant',s contention here urged must 15e decided upon tbe,basis that his Arkansas marriage contract is void . if it 'be . established :that appellant had a living „ wife, not divorced at the . titne of the consummation thereof. Appellant cites and .relies upon as decisive of his contention Fountain y. Fountain, 80 Ark. 481, 97 S. W. 656. This case has•no application to the facts here presented. In tbe case referred to, the wife brought suit for divoree and the husband by answer denied the validity of the marriage contract. -. Proof was heard by the lower court on the preliminary question of temporary alimony and attorneys' fees, and We held,. as the lower court had, that the proof was sufficient to warrant the . allowance. and affirM the order in this behalf. Morgan v. Morgan, 149 Ga. 625, 97 S. E. 675, 4 A. L. R. 925,.is also cited and relied npon• by appellant as supporting his contention. This case arose between a husband who was nuder statutory . disability of . minority at the time of . his marriage contract and his wife . who sought temporary alimony and attorneys' fees. The court held the wife not entitled to such allowances pending the suit. Conceding this Case to be rightly. decided; it has no application -Le the facts of this'case. There the minor husband *had no . ' capaCity 'to contract' Marriage, • -Whereas in the instant case . the husband has no impediment save that created by his own act. Moreover, Morgan v. Morgan; SUpra, iS not supported . by the weight of authority on this subject. I R. C. L., § 66, title "Alimony," states the general rule as follows : "Where nn annulment of the marriage is
166 LEE V. LEE. [191 sought by the husband, who admits that a ceremonial marriage took place, but claims it to have been illegal and void, the wife is entitled to a reasonable allowance to enable her to make a proper defense to the suit, provided she denies on oath the allegations on which such invalidity is based." Bishop on Marriage, Divorce and Separation, vol. 2, § 925, states the general rule as follows : "If parties enter upon cohabitation under a marriage which in fact is void, a fortiori under a voidable one, this reasoning shows that, upon a suit between them to set it aside and declare it void, there may he temporary alimony. * * * Not perhaps following this form of reasoning, but in some form conducing to the same result, the courts have generally held the mere de facto marriage to be adequate for temporary alimony and suit money in the nullity suit, whether on the allegation that the marriage was void or that it was voidable." Keezer, Marriage and Divorce, 2d ed., § 711, et seq., states the general rule as announced by Bishop, supra, and cites authorities throughout the United States in support thereof. The general rule deducible from the great weight of American authority is that, when a de facto marriage is admitted or established, and the wife is otherwise entitled to temporary alimony, suit money and attorney's fees, such allowances may be made pending the suit, irrespective of the speculative outcome of such suit. See annotations, 4 A. L. R, page 926, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) page 500, in addition to the authorities cited, supra. Appellant not only admits a de facto marriage to ap-pellee, but invokes the aid of a court to destroy its prima facie validity, and we know of no sound rule of law -or reason which denies to appellee tbe ordinary right of temporary alimony, suit money and attorneys' fees while defending such litigation. No error appearing, the decree is affirmed.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.