| NORMAN SUNESON v. YVONNE SUNESON | | | | plaintiff appealed. |
| & State Board of Retirement. | | | | - Whether the trial court erred in rendering in |
| Appeals Court of Massachusetts | | | | favor of the widow, that the plaintiff was |
| June 18, 1987, Decided | | | | estopped from denying the marriage? |
| In 1971, Yvonne's then husband, Louis Bilodeau, | | | | Discussion: |
| told her he was going to obtain a Mexican divorce. | | | | Despite the probable invalidity of Yvonne's |
| Yvonne consented and signed several forms. | | | | divorce, the trial judge, relying on Poor v. Poor, |
| Shortly thereafter, she received through the mail | | | | 381 Mass. 392 (1980), treated the case as one |
| a copy of a three-page document entitled "Final | | | | where, balancing the equities, Paul would now be |
| Divorce Decree." Prior to Paul's marriage to | | | | estopped from challenging the divorce. Norman |
| Yvonne in 1977, Paul examined the Mexican | | | | urges that Poor is inapplicable because here there |
| divorce papers. Both Paul and Yvonne entered | | | | is no foreign judgment but only a fake decree. |
| into their marriage believing themselves free to | | | | This Court, however, agree with the trial judge, |
| marry. They separated in 1980, and in 1982 Paul | | | | who said: "As long as the parties' belief is sincere, |
| designated Norman plaintiff as his beneficiary | | | | it makes little difference for purposes of estoppel, |
| under G. L. c. 32, § 11. After Paul's death in 1983, | | | | whether the divorce was issued by a Mexican |
| an investigation revealed that the Mexican court | | | | court that lacked jurisdiction, or whether it was |
| that purportedly had issued the divorce decree | | | | issued by an attorney doing a brisk business in |
| had no record of any action between Yvonne and | | | | fraudulent Mexican divorces. This Court also |
| Louis Bilodeau and had no record of any divorce | | | | agrees with the judge that Norman, a stranger to |
| decree. It thus appears that an attorney for | | | | the marriage, has standing only as Paul's designee |
| Bilodeau sent the parties a fraudulent and invalid | | | | and, as such, is to be estopped "just as Paul |
| Mexican decree. Plaintiff, brother-in-law, | | | | would have been estopped." |
| commenced an action against defendant widow | | | | The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the |
| seeking a declaration that he, as the designated | | | | widow. |
| beneficiary, was entitled to the retirement | | | | Disclaimer: |
| benefits of his deceased brother on the ground | | | | These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law |
| that the widow's marriage to his brother was | | | | Group. They represent the firm's unofficial views |
| invalid. Superior court, Massachusetts, rendered | | | | of the Justices' opinions. The original opinions |
| in favor of the widow on the basis that he was | | | | should be consulted for their authoritative content. |
| estopped from denying the marriage. The | | | | |