Cook V Cook

COOK v.
COOK
104 P.3d 857, 209 Ariz. 487
13 January 2005
In re the Marriage of:
Alan Roger Cook v. Peggy Cook
Appeal from the Superior Court of Yuma County, Arizona
• Dismissal of a motion to amend/dismiss the marital dissolution
proceedings
• Ground: Void and prohibited marriage
✓ The statutory scheme in place when the couple moved to the state
expressly allowed the marriage, but a subsequent amendment made
such a marriage void.
Facts
• Alan Roger Cook

✓ Petitioner-Appellant
• Peggy Cook
✓ Respondent-Appellee
• 1984: Married in Virginia
• 1986: Their child was born
• 1989: Moved to Arizona
• Alan & Peggy are first cousins.
1984 1989 1996 1997
MARRIED IN MOVED TO AMENDMENT PETITION FOR MARITAL
VIRGINIA ARIZONA To provide that “marriages valid DISSOLUTION
• April 7, 1984 Void marriages between by laws of the place where • January 3, 1997
• Valid marriages first cousins except that contracted are valid in this • Superior Court of Yuma
between first cousins “marriages valid by laws of state, except marriages that County, Arizona
(then and now) the place where contracted are void and prohibited by
are valid in this state.” A.R.S. §25-101.”
Trial court denied
the motion.
ALAN ROGER COOK
• Initially alleged there Prior to the 1996 amendments, Arizona
was a marriage law did not preclude recognition of a
• Subsequently filed a marriage valid in other states that was
motion to amend/ void in Arizona pursuant to § 25-101.
dismiss dissolution
proceedings alleging The 1996 amendments could not be
that their marriage was retroactively applied to void a marriage
void and prohibited
that was valid at the time the parties moved
under A.R.S. §§ 25-101
and -112(A). to Arizona.
• Appealed to the Court of

Appeals of Arizona
ISSUES
1.Which law should determine the
validity of the marriage of Alan &
Peggy Cook?
2.Is the marriage of Alan & Peggy
Cook valid under the Arizona law?
1. Which law should determine
the validity of the marriage?
• VIRGINIA
✓ Marriage is valid
• ARIZONA
✓ Presented with statutory & constitutional
issues as to whether the marriage is valid
1. Arizona marriage law applies.
GENERAL RULE
The law of the place where the marriage is celebrated, not the law
of the place where the divorce takes place, determines the validity of
the marriage.
✓ Reasons: predictability and the interstate order arising from society's
interest in marriage
EXCEPTION
The power to define a valid marriage is vested in this state’s
(Arizona) legislature and not in the legislature (or judiciary) of
another state nor in the judiciary of this state.
✓ Strong public policy exceptions: pronounced by the Arizona legislature;
stated (at least in part) in A.R.S. §§ 25-101 and -112, which declare
certain marriages void.
“That our cases instruct us to look to Arizona's statutes on the validity of
marriage — even if another state has a more significant relationship —
is particularly apt given the importance of marriage and the present
divergent views on that subject.
Marriage is a foundation stone in the bedrock of our
state and communities.”
Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws (1971), Section 6(1):

A court, subject to constitutional restrictions, will follow a statutory
directive of its own state on choice of law.
Unless constitutionally required, Arizona should not be held hostage

to the policies of another state on a subject so vital as who may or may
not marry.
Under a conflict-of-law analysis, Arizona authorities require the
Court to recognize the preeminence of the Arizona legislature’s
express statutory enactments as to whether a particular out-of-
state marriage is valid or void in Arizona.
The Court does not apply the law from the state of Virginia, even
though Virginia had the most significant relationship to the parties
at the time of the marriage.
2. Is the marriage of Alan
& Peggy Cook valid under
the Arizona law?
2. Valid marriage under Arizona law.
Though not controlling, the Court’s conclusion that appellee (Peggy) has a
vested right in the validity of her marriage is also supported by Arizona law
pertaining to community property. A spouse’s interest in the marital
community includes a “vested property interest.” Hatch v. Hatch, 113
Ariz. 130, 134, 547 P.2d 1044, 1048 (1976).
Prior to 1996, the Arizona legislature specifically stated that "marriages

valid by the laws of the place where contracted are valid in this state.“
✓ The statutory scheme in place in 1989, when the parties moved to
Arizona, expressly recognized appellee’s (Peggy’s) marriage.
✓ The exceptions identified in § 25-112(B) and (C) are inapplicable as
neither appellee (Peggy) nor appellant (Alan) sought to evade Arizona
law when they married in Virginia. They were validly married in
Virginia before coming to Arizona.
By construing the statute to apply prospectively only, the Court
harmonizes the 1996 amendments with Arizona’s constitutional
prohibitions against retroactive legislation.
Further, A.R.S. §1-244 (2000) expressly provides that “no statute is

retroactive unless expressly declared therein.”
The Court can give effect to the legislature’s use of the word “void” in
the 1996 amendments by applying that term to exclude vested rights
in existing marriages as we have described them.
Had the legislature chosen to nullify existing marriages (thus having the
retroactive effect described) it could have expressly stated so.
It did not.
Accordingly, the Court can give legitimate meaning to the term “void”
in the 1996 amendments by applying it to marriages from other
jurisdictions in which the parties had no vested right to have their
marriage recognized in Arizona.
The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.
Doctrines
✓ Unless strong public policy
exceptions require
otherwise, the validity of
the marriage is generally
determined by the law of
the place of marriage.
✓ No statute is retroactive
unless expressly declared
therein.

Cook V Cook

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cook V Cook

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

COOK v.

• Alan Roger Cook

• Appealed to the Court of

Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws (1971), Section 6(1):

Unless constitutionally required, Arizona should not be held hostage

Prior to 1996, the Arizona legislature specifically stated that "marriages

Further, A.R.S. §1-244 (2000) expressly provides that “no statute is

You might also like