Talk:Annulment

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Other types of annulment[edit]

Annulment does not exclusively apply to marriage. A Court can annul a Bankruptcy Order in the UK (see s282 Insolvency Act 1986), Republic of Ireland, Australia, and perhaps other jurisdictions where bankruptcy law was originally based on UK law. Maybe there should be a general article on annulment, with a more specialist article on annulment of a marriage. I am not sure that the annulment of bankruptcy would justify an article by itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.59.163.198 (talk) 12:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Concur. This page only seems to be about annulment of marriages. Does annulment of divorces belong in this article? [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.169.209.184 (talk) 08:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged non-grounds for annulment[edit]

The following were listed as *not* being grounds for annulment:

  1. Failure to consummate the marriage
  2. Failure to live together
  3. Marriage less than 1 year
  4. Mutual consent
  5. Mistake
  6. Already married

In the Roman Catholic Church, (1) above is a ground for nullity (canon 1142) and (6) is clearly an impediment (canon 1085). (5) is sometimes invalidating; error about the person makes marriage invalid, but other errors do not. (2), (3) and (4) are not grounds for nullity.

Incidentally, there is a very long list of "diriment impediments" in the Code of Canon Law, for example canon 1090 section 1: " A person who for the purpose of entering marriage with a certain person has brought about the death of that person's spouse or one's own spouse, invalidly attempted such a marriage". (If the Code says that "marriage is forbidden" (eg canon 1124) then presumably this does not invalidate marriage but makes the marriage sinful.)

The diriment impediment listed above is the one known as "crimen", which I've noted elsewhere in wikipedia, so feel free to adjust or improve it there -- see the wiki article titled "crimen". -- ll

The position in England regarding those impediments listed above is similar. However, the list is (I think) much shorter.

Please flesh out (and check!) these ramblings before incorporating them.

213.48.231.25 19:47, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Yes, something needs to be done about that list, because (6) is glaringly silly to list as "not a ground for annullment", don't you think?

Canon 1142 says that a non-consummated marriage can be dissolved, not that it is invalid. 24.191.87.42 (talk) 03:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New York statute[edit]

Could the article provide a link to the New York statute if available? --Daniel C. Boyer 15:41, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

list for invalid grounds is currently ridiculous[edit]

The grounds for annulment do not include any of the following: ... 

   *

This looks pretty stupid--wouldn't it be better to remove the whole list than have such a glaringly ridiculous assertion on it?

I found an a website that might be useful for improving this article

http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac1002.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk) 18:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bigamy in New York[edit]

From the article (hereinafter statement X):

A bigamous marriage (one party was still married at the time of the second marriage) cannot be annulled—it is void ab initio (not legal from its inception).

I don't understand this statement. A quick google reveals a distinction between "voidable" and "void ab initio" [2]:

Void ab initio marriages are thought to be contrary to public policy and the state has an interest in ending the marital relationship. Support and property rights are generally waived if an annulment is granted on void ab initio grounds, not so with an annulment granted on voidable grounds.

Statement X suggests anulment is the process of making "voidable" marriages void, and since "void ab inito" marriages are void to begin with, the process cannot be applied. However,
(1) legally declaring that a marriage was "void ab initio"
has the same practical outcome as
(2.1)legally finding that a marriage is voidable
plus
(2.2)legally making the marriage void
So if "annulment" is strictly only to be applied to process 2.2, what name is given to the sum total of process 2, or to the similar process 1? The aforementioned source (admittedly for Virginia, not New York) suggest annulment applies equally to process 1 or 2; in which case statement X is incorrect. Joestynes 06:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

copyright[edit]

The extended quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church in the section "annulment in the Catholic Church" may be copyrighted material; even if it is fair use in the United States, it may violate copyright if viewed elsewhere, unless permission was granted. Was permission granted for the quote? (By the way, inclusion of the quote actually causes the article to read favorably to the Catholic Church; although you or I may agree with the teaching, Wikipedia is supposed to be "neutral.") 69.140.164.142 04:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"This catechism is given to them [pastors and the lay apostolate] that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching Catholic doctrine [...]. It is also offered to all the faithful who wish to deepen their knowledge of the unfathomable riches of salvation (cf. Jn 8:32). [...] The Catechism of the Catholic Church, lastly, is offered to every individual who asks us to give an account of the hope that is in us (cf. 1 Pt 3:15) and who wants to know what the Catholic Church believes." John Paul II, Apostolic Constitution "Fidei depositum". To me that's a copyright permission, at least for non-commercial information as Wikipedia is. --77.4.46.189 (talk) 10:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I need to know if you found out that the husband is abusive after the marraige can it be annuled? I found out from his ex wife that he was also abusive w/ her and two other spouses.

Ask your canon lawyer. Him having three ex-wives, chances are that the annulment is very easy on formal grounds (sometimes even by administrative decree without a trial), if he was bound by a valid marriage. - If these were not canonical marriages, the principle is that whatever a husband does after marriage cannot possibly annul it. It can, however, serve as circumstantial evidence. If it can be proven in court that he intended to be abusive in a way that either is contrary to the essence of marriage itself or of which it can be proven that it would have prevented the woman from marrying him, then an annulment seems within the range of possible things. I have a slight feeling, though, that "abusive" can mean various things. (I am no canon lawyer.)--93.133.114.13 (talk) 13:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline Priv.[edit]

Just as a side note, Pauline privilege (as the Catholic Church understands it) extends to all Christians, not merely Catholics. I have, therefore, changed the article. I also added the existence of Petrine privilege. DaveTroy (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PPOV tag[edit]

This concerns POV tag cleanup. Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. From WP tag policy: Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort. Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements. This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags. No discussion, no tag.Jjdon (talk) 20:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Divorce, Annulment and Marriage[edit]

Where deos it comment in the Bible on Divorce or Annulment, and why is there no reference on the main page?

I cannot accept any man made or cultural understandings on such matters without scripture for back up. I am also not clear on the subject of marriage (in spiritual terms), as Adam and Eve were married without a clergyman or witnesses other than God. Does this mean that two people can be married as long as they pronounce it in front of God and each other, does God hold people to this kind of spiritual agreement/contract, or would this be fornication?

Some people could see the initial marriage ritual as the first sexual relations that an individual has with another(of course in mutual love and between man and woman), this physical/spiritual bond lasting until death. The rest of the journey being love, respect and duty to each other and children. Not a peice of paper that which ever State you live in recognises, ordained by a clergyman that might not of been appointed by God but by man in a Church that is physical only,(according to scripture two or more people discussing the matters of God will have Him present and that makes a Church).

Is this witness enough?

The reason why I am asking this is because there is an increasing amount of people who are getting married for legal reasons rather than genuine ones, there are also legal complications which are unecessarily complicated, especially to do with Divorce or Annulment. The Laws seem to be unfair and can be taken advantage of by selfish and cruel hearted people.

Pre-nups should be the other way round as to ensure a person is not getting married to you for your wealth. To make someone sign a pre-nup as it stands only proves that you don't trust them.

Can we bypass the Law of the land and still respect Gods Law? 195.171.94.254 (talk) 11:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why the focus on Catholic doctrine?[edit]

This article appears to be heavily lopsided. It talks at great length about annulment in the context of the Catholic church, which seems inappropriate for an article about law, especially considering a separate article already exists for annulment in the Catholic church, and is linked to in this article. I think that section needs to be trimmed considerably, and more info should be added about what the law says. This should include US states other than New York if their laws are notable, as well as other countries. Äþelwulf Talk to me. 11:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the article focuses on canon law. The Anglican church follows canon law, and because English marriages were performed in Anglican churches for hundreds of years, the English common law of marriage follows canon law. The present material of annulment under canon law is particularly relevant. Compare the Nullity (conflict) article with this one. If you read the Catholic section, you will realize that the New York law concerning annulment for fraud is in fact what canon law calls defect of contract. There is no reason to start deleting content from this article unless it is false or irrelevant. The present content is both accurate and relevant. In what sort of building were people getting married when the laws were drafted? A church. It may seem lopsided that a country believing in separation of church and state would put a great deal of religion into marriage laws, but that is the reality. Feel free to expand the article to include other jurisdictions. 76.124.87.208 (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I do misunderstand something here. I'm neither religious nor a lawyer. But let me clarify what I'm trying to say, as well as address some of your comments:
  • There is a link to "Annulment (Catholic Church)" under the section "Annulment in the Catholic Church", and I think that's appropriate. One problem I see with the section, however, is that the information from that article is not summarized. The section appears to be about as long as the whole article main. Generally, when there's a link to a main article under a given section, that's because, while said main article is relevant, it is inappropriate to include the bulk of the content from there in said section. This is because it's excessively redundant to write a lot of prose that's written elsewhere when it's easier just to link to it and summarize.
  • I can't figure out why this article is named "Annulment", and another one is named "Annulment (Catholic Church)", if this article is, as I believe you're saying, meant to focus on the concept of annulment in a religious context. Why isn't this article called something like "Annulment (religion)"? Or alternatively, why isn't the religious context (including information on the Catholic church) discussed in such an article, and the legal context discussed in this one? The {{family law}} template to the right implies to me a legal context. The inclusion of annulment under "Dissolution of marriage" in said template reinforces this impression. I believe this perspective should be developed, and the religious perspective trimmed and/or moved to a more appropriate article except where it is demonstrably relevant to the legal concept.
  • Why do you mention the Anglican church, a religious organization/movement/whatever-it-is that cannot be solidly classified as "Catholic", as well as English law in your response to my concerns when England is only mentioned in the article because Henry VIII is, and when the Anglican church isn't mentioned at all? Incidentally, I think discussion of this derivation from Anglican canon is appropriate for a potential section on English annulment law, if this can be sourced. I would contribute to this myself, but I'm afraid I don't know much about it.
  • I didn't mean to say that canon law wasn't relevant at all, as it seems you might believe I did. In cases where laws have been greatly influenced by, or are directly tied to, religious doctrine, then yes, I think that should be discussed, and religious doctrine should be discussed in this context.
  • I don't doubt that New York's annulment laws are influenced by, or at least share key features with, canon law. Lots of things in the world are influenced by religion in some way. However, it seems this idea is not connected to the section on canon law. To me, the section on New York just discusses a legal fact without even trying to draw a connection to religious doctrine, or even implying that there is one. In fact, it seems to me that the connection is not very remarkable, as New York law doesn't deliberately try to conform to what religious doctrine says, and New York, as far as I know, is not unique among other jurisdictions in the United States and the world in terms of connection to religious doctrine. If I'm wrong, and this can be demonstrated by a source, then this could be included in this article to show a clearer connection.
  • I'm not suggesting indiscriminate, wholesale deletion of content. Again, I believe a discussion of religious doctrine is appropriate in the context of some kind of connection with law. Beyond that, I believe a lot of the content in the article is redundant and/or inappropriate since most of it could be found at "Annulment (Catholic Church)" or moved there if it cannot, and it could be summarized in this article.
  • The article on nullity that you drew my attention to seems to focus on the context of conflict of laws, which is signified by the appearance of the disambiguating "(conflict)" in the title. This is more specific than the more general idea of nullity/annulment. Are you implying that "Nullity (conflict)" is meant to be the legal context of the topic, and "Annulment" is the religious context? If you are, then I would disagree.
Thank you for your comments. Please let me know what I don't understand, if this is the case, because I don't see what I don't understand, and I'll stand by my comments until I do see. I would gladly contribute to this article myself, but unfortunately I'm just an amateur law nerd who probably doesn't know enough about this topic. Äþelwulf Talk to me. 04:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Canon law is law. Indeed canon law has a legal context, hence the template at the edge of the page. "In the strict sense, an annulment is a judicial declaration that, by reason of defect in its inception, a purported marriage does not now and has never existed. As noted earlier, annulment stems from the same canonical roots that gave us divorce and separate maintenance." Krause, Elrod, Garrison & Oldham, Family Law p. 581. You are mostly confusing religious doctrine with canon law. Canon law contains religious doctrine, but it is not religious doctrine in and of itself. The other answers to your questions can be found in books on family law, canon law, and common law. You may also get some of your answers from the appropriate wikipedia articles. The first sentence of the article canon law, will answer your question, "Why do you mention the Anglican church, a religious organization/movement/whatever-it-is that cannot be solidly classified as 'Catholic.'" Why would English annulment law be relevant to the legal systems of former British colonies? Surely you realize that a legal system was already in place before the American War of Independence, and that the whole of the colonies were British subjects? A context of conflict of laws is incredibly important because of the issues that arise when people are married in one jurisdiction but move to another. Annulment comes to the forefront especially with wills. Children wishing a bigger share will want a marriage annulled when the domicile of the marriage would not recognize the union. Courts have used their own annulment laws or those of the place of marriage lex loci celebrationis with no conformity in choice. Because of a lack of consistency, the issue of annulment still arises in a conflicts question and it still sees debate in this context. There is little debate when both parties agree to an annulment. So, yes, the article could be better if written from a conflicts perspective because a) the difficulty in writing a general article on annulment with the vast numbers of discrepancies and b) the greater number of annulment issues that come up in conflict questions than in other contexts. Because all jurisdictions will see an element of canon law in their annulment law, the attention this article gives to canon law is not misplaced. The title of the section should be annulment under canon law. The subject may be a little complex and perhaps someone with knowledge of the law of conflicts and family law should elaborate on this article. Not many exist; annulment law filled 2 out of 1000 pages in my family law textbook from a few years ago. I do not want to give it much more thought myself. I hope this answered your question "Why focus on Catholic doctrine?" If you still need more, consult a treatise on family law, canon law, and common law. Gx872op (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henry VIII[edit]

According to the article on Henry VIII's 6 wives, 4 wives were annulled, not 3. -- CowplopmorrisTalkContribs 16:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retroactive[edit]

I don't think the term retroactive should be applied here, as an annulment does not change the past "marriage" but rather states what had been true before. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.191.87.42 (talk) 03:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Annulment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Annulment[edit]

As a practicing lawyer and having obtained many legal annulments over the years, I know about the subject. Surely annulment as a part of Canon law is a parallel or tangential track that exists at the same time. One is secular; one is religious. The lead paragraph should reflect this fork/dichotomy. In fact, the whole article should be reorganized so that it does not admix the two. They have separate and distinct grounds and effects. "Render unto Caesar..." Two kingdoms doctrine. Not fungible goods. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that annulments exist both through secular and canon law -- see, e.g., Declaration of nullity, Get (divorce document). The article mentions Henry VIII whose inability to obtain an annulment from the Catholic Church led to England's split from the Church, and already includes extensive material on religious annulment. Arllaw (talk) 12:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would caution that my comments were framed in the culture and context in which I work. This may have a 'western' bias and not present 'a world view.' It is possible that in some countries civil and canon laws merge. E.g., Sharia law and within the Vatican City/Vatican, so that there would only be one standard for an annulment there. I don't know. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside and interestingly, I found that amongst all the world's countries, only Vatican City and the Philippines have no law allowing for divorce. See Divorce has No Place in Vatican City By Jung Inman - July 31, 2016. The article does say that annulments are permitted. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Annulment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Annulment&oldid=1204881653"