26 N.Y.2d 44 (1970)
r
r
A marriage, initially invalid due to an impediment on one party, may be validated by subsequent actions and recognition of the marital relationship after the impediment is removed, especially when coupled with a nunc pro tunc court order.
r
r
Summary
r
This case concerns the validity of a marriage for the purposes of workmen’s compensation death benefits. The claimant’s initial ceremonial marriage was invalid due to a restriction from a prior divorce. The court addressed whether a subsequent nunc pro tunc order retroactively validated the marriage, and whether a common-law marriage was established in Florida. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, finding sufficient evidence to support the validity of the marriage, either through the retroactive order or the establishment of a common-law marriage in Florida.
r
r
Facts
r
The claimant, previously divorced, remarried Herbert Farber in New York in 1949 without obtaining court permission, as required by her divorce decree. In 1949, the couple traveled to Florida, intending to establish a business and residence there. While in Florida, they held a wedding party and publicly presented themselves as husband and wife. After Herbert Farber’s death, the claimant sought death benefits as his wife. A nunc pro tunc order was obtained in 1961, retroactively granting permission for the claimant to remarry as of 1949.
r
r
Procedural History
r
The Workmen’s Compensation Board initially ruled against the claimant, which was reversed by the Appellate Division. The Board then found in favor of the claimant based on a common-law marriage in Florida, which the Appellate Division affirmed. The U.S. Trucking Corporation appealed to the Court of Appeals. They also applied to vacate the nunc pro tunc order in Supreme Court, which was denied, and they did not appeal that denial.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
1. Whether the nunc pro tunc order obtained in 1961 retroactively validated the claimant’s 1949 marriage to Herbert Farber, despite the initial prohibition on her remarriage.
r
2. Whether the claimant and Herbert Farber established a valid common-law marriage in Florida, based on their actions and intent during their visit in 1949.
r
r
Holding
r
1. Yes, the nunc pro tunc order was valid because the only impediment to the 1949 marriage was the absence of a court order which would have been routinely granted at the time, and the appellant had become bound by the final determination of the issue against it by controverting the order in an adversary proceeding to vacate it.
r
2. Yes, a valid common-law marriage was established in Florida, because the claimant and Herbert Farber demonstrated a present intent to be married, cohabitated, and publicly recognized their marriage in Florida, satisfying the requirements for a common-law marriage under Florida law.
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The court reasoned that the nunc pro tunc order effectively removed the impediment to the claimant’s remarriage, validating the ceremonial marriage from its inception. The court distinguished its prior holding in Merrick v. Merrick, emphasizing that the subsequent statutory changes in New York demonstrated a more liberal policy toward remarriage. The employer, U.S. Trucking, was also bound by the Supreme Court’s denial of their motion to vacate the order.
r
Alternatively, the court found that the claimant and Farber established a valid common-law marriage in Florida. The court cited evidence that the parties intended to live in Florida, held a wedding party, and publicly acknowledged their marital status. The court noted Florida law presumes a marriage relationship, especially when the parties cohabitate and are generally reputed to be married. The court observed,