Case: Elia-Warnken v. Elia

WO09D0940DR | Massachusetts state trial court

Filed Date: 2009

Closed Date: July 26, 2012

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This was a case in which two men married under Massachusetts law in 2005, but the plaintiff (in the divorce) had, at the time of the marriage, a prior undissolved Vermont same-sex civil union. The plaintiff sought divorce in 2009, but the defendant moved to dismiss the divorce claim (and his own counter-claim for divorce), on the ground that the Massachusetts marriage was void, because the plaintiff's civil union was covered by the Massachusetts anti-polygamy law. On July 26, 2012, the Massa…
This was a case in which two men married under Massachusetts law in 2005, but the plaintiff (in the divorce) had, at the time of the marriage, a prior undissolved Vermont same-sex civil union. The plaintiff sought divorce in 2009, but the defendant moved to dismiss the divorce claim (and his own counter-claim for divorce), on the ground that the Massachusetts marriage was void, because the plaintiff's civil union was covered by the Massachusetts anti-polygamy law. On July 26, 2012, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice Ireland, recognized the Vermont civil union as the equivalent of marriage in Massachusetts, under principles of comity. Accordingly the Massachusetts marriage was void ab initio. (The Court noted that Vermont law likewise prohibits marriage to a third party by someone still part of a civil union. Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, secs. 4 & 511.)(The procedural progress of the case was a little complex: The matter was initially before the Worcester Probate and Family Court, but after a hearing on the defendants' motion, on April 6, 2010, that court (Judge King) reported the question to the Appeals court for determination, rather than deciding it in the first instance. The Supreme Judicial Court then transferred the case to itself, on its own motion, apparently in July 2011. It announced, however, that the Probate and Family Court judge should have made an interlocutory ruling on the defendant's motion to dismiss, rather than simply reporting the matter to the Appeals court. It sent the case back to the Probate Court, and explained that whichever way that court ruled, the matter would resume in the Supreme Judicial Court on appeal. Just a few days later, on August 1, 2011, the Probate Court entered a judgment of dismissal, agreeing with the defendant that the Vermont civil union barred the Massachusetts marriage. The Supreme Judicial Court heard argument in April 2012, and decided the case, as described above, on July 26, 2012.)

Summary Authors

Clearinghouse (8/13/2012)

People

Judge(s)

Ireland, Roderick L. (Massachusetts)

Expert/Monitor/Master/Other

Loewy, Karen L. (Massachusetts)

Plante, Nicholas J. (Massachusetts)

Popick, Herbert F. (Vermont)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

SJC-11023

Docket [Mass. Supreme Judicial Court]

ELIA-WARNKEN v. ELIA

Massachusetts state supreme court

July 26, 2012

July 26, 2012

Docket

SJC-11023

[Opinion of Mass. Supreme Judicial Court]

Massachusetts state supreme court

July 26, 2012

July 26, 2012

Order/Opinion

463 Mass. 29

Resources

Docket

Last updated Aug. 30, 2023, 2:47 p.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details

State / Territory: Massachusetts

Case Type(s):

Public Benefits/Government Services

Special Collection(s):

Same-Sex Marriage

Key Dates

Filing Date: 2009

Closing Date: July 26, 2012

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

A Massachusetts man seeking divorce from his husband; the defendant sought dismissal of the divorce and a recognition that the marriage was void, because the plaintiff had a prior Vermont civil union.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

[Divorcing couple], Private Entity/Person

Case Details

Causes of Action:

State law

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Non-settlement Outcome

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Defendant

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Issues

General/Misc.:

Marriage

Discrimination Basis:

Sexual orientation