Legal question
In 1953, my mother-in-law divorced her husband in WI. She remarried my father-in-law 20 days later in IL. My research shows that in 1953 WI that someone has to wait one year before getting remarried - therefore they went to IL. This marriage would not have been recognized by the state of WI because it would have been skirting WI law. They then went exactly one year to the day from my mother-in-law's divorce and had another "wedding" preformed in Indiana. I do not understand why they went to Indiana unless there was a legal issue about getting married in WI after flaunting WI law for a year. Any ideas?
Bryan
Milwaukee, WI
Answers
-
Per Google A.I.
Key details of the remarriage law in 1953
One-year waiting period:A person was not allowed to marry again until one year had passed from the date the divorce judgment was granted.Marriage was "null and void":Any marriage ceremony involving one of the parties during that one-year period was invalid.Out-of-state marriages were invalid in Wisconsin:If a person went to another state to remarry before the year was up and then returned to Wisconsin, the marriage would not be recognized by Wisconsin courts. This could also result in the marriage being annulled.Limited exceptions:The law did include some exceptions where a subsequent ceremonial marriage could be considered valid, but only if specific conditions were met. This included a good faith marriage after the one-year period had passed, with at least one person believing they were legally married
I found in the Marquette Law Review for the time frame the following:
II. DIVORCE IN WISCONSIN - REMARRIAGE OUTSIDE WISCONSIN. This topic can be divided into two parts for present consideration; first, where a return to a Wisconsin domicile after the subsequent marriage appears, and second, where a new domicile is established outside Wisconsin after the subsequent marriage. As to the first, the result reached has in all respects been the same as that indicated under topicI." A typical statement in such a situation is the following language from the leading case of Lanham v. Lanham.9"To say that the legislature intended such a law (245.03)to apply only while the parties are within the boundaries of the state and that it contemplated that by crossing the state line its citizens could successfully nullify its terms; is to make the act essentially useless and impotent and ascribe practical imbecility to the lawmaking power .... It (245.03) seems unquestionably
Not being a lawyer this appears to me that they in fact invalidated the divorce by flaunting Wi. law. Unless done in good faith by both parties which may give them justification for a remarriage in violation of State law.
1
