Larson v. Larson - 42 Ill. App. 2d 467, 192 N.E.2d 594 (1963)

Rule:

When the celebration of a marriage is shown, the contract of marriage, the capacity of the parties, and, in fact, everything necessary to the validity of the marriage, in the absence of proof to the contrary, is presumed; the burden of proof was upon the plaintiff to show the marriage was invalid; to enable a party legally to contract a marriage he or she must be capable of understanding the nature of the act. When a marriage is shown the law raises a strong presumption in favor of its validity, and the burden is upon one objecting thereto to prove such facts and circumstances as necessarily establish its invalidity; there is no clear dividing line between competency and incompetency, and each case must be judged by its own peculiar facts; the parties must have sufficient mental capacity to enter into the status, but proof of lack of mental capacity must be clear and definite; if the party possesses sufficient mental capacity to understand the nature, effect, duties, and obligations of the marriage contract into which he or she is entering, the marriage contract is binding, as long as they are otherwise legally competent to enter into the relation.

Facts:

The wife exhibited odd behavior soon after the marriage, and the husband claimed that he knew nothing of her having any mental disability in the two years he knew her before they married. After the marriage she ran away twice and was committed to a state hospital for treatment for mental illness on two occasions. An expert who did not examine her testified that she was most likely schizophrenic and that she would probably not recover completely. The husband filed for annulment. He claimed that she was of unsound mind before and at the time of marriage, that she continued to be so, and that she was incapable of understanding a contract of marriage. The circuit court issued a decree dismissing his action for annulment of his marriage to defendant wife for want of equity. The husband appealed alleging that the decree was contrary to the evidence.

Issue:

Did the husband satisfy the burden of proving that the wife was an insane person at the date of the marriage?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court found that Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 89, § 2 (1949), in force at the time of the marriage, provided that no insane person or idiot was capable of contracting marriage, but that it did not provide that mentally ill persons had no capacity. The court affirmed and found that capacity was presumed absent clear and definite evidence to the contrary, that the decree was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence or to the law, that the evidence tended to show that she had long periods of lucidity, and that the husband did not satisfy the burden of proving that she was an insane person at the date of the marriage.