Delaware Code

13 Del. C. § 101 (2026)

Void and voidable marriages

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section DE-DELCdelcode.delaware.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) A marriage is prohibited and void between a person and such person’s ancestor, descendant, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, uncle, aunt, niece, nephew or first cousin.

(b) A marriage is prohibited, and is void from the time its nullity is declared by a court of competent jurisdiction at the instance of the innocent party, if either party thereto is:

(1)-(5) [Repealed.]

(6) Divorced, unless a certified copy of the divorce decree (last decree if such person has been divorced more than once) or a certificate of such divorce from the clerk of the court granting the divorce is inspected by the clerk of the peace to whom such person makes application for a marriage license, and unless such person may in other respects lawfully marry; and, if such decree or certificate cannot be obtained, the Resident Judge of the county where such license is desired or the person designated by the Resident Judge to grant such certificates as may be accepted under this paragraph (b)(6) may grant a certificate of the facts as stated by the applicant and the certificate may, for the purposes of this chapter, be accepted in lieu of a certified copy of a divorce decree;

(7) [Repealed.]

(d) A marriage obtained or recognized outside the State between persons prohibited by subsection (a) of this section shall not constitute a legal or valid marriage within the State.

(e) For all purposes of the laws of this State, 2 persons of the same gender who are parties to a legal union other than a marriage (whether designated as a civil union, a domestic partnership or another relationship) established in another jurisdiction shall be afforded and shall be subject to the same rights, benefits, protections, responsibilities, obligations and duties as are afforded and imposed upon married spouses (whether derived from statutes, administrative rules or regulations, court rules, governmental policies, common law, court decisions, or any other provisions or sources of law, including in equity) if:

(1) Such legal union was validly entered into in such other jurisdiction;

(2) Such legal union would not be prohibited as a marriage by reason of subsection (a) of this section; and

(3) Such legal union affords and imposes on such individuals under the laws of the jurisdiction establishing such union substantially the same rights, benefits, protections, responsibilities, obligations and duties as a marriage.

Code 1852, §§ 1435-1437; 27 Del. Laws, c. 261, § 1; Code 1915, § 2992; 32 Del. Laws, c. 182, § 1; Code 1935, § 3485; 13 Del. C. 1953, § 101; 52 Del. Laws, c. 204; 54 Del. Laws, c. 34, § 1; 62 Del. Laws, c. 76, § 1; 65 Del. Laws, c. 472, § 1; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1; 70 Del. Laws, c. 375, §§ 1, 2; 76 Del. Laws, c. 48, § 1; 77 Del. Laws, c. 47, § 1; 79 Del. Laws, c. 19, § 1; 84 Del. Laws, c. 42, § 1; 85 Del. Laws, c. 67, § 7;

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1969–2019 · leading case: Windsor v. United States, 699 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Windsor v. United States, 699 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2012). “§ 14-2-104; 13 Del.Code Ann. § 101; *204 Fla. Const. Art.”

Husband v. Wife, 257 A.2d 765 (Del. Super. Ct. 1969). · cites it 2× “I assume the second statute was not relied upon here because the petitioner felt the service by publication provision in the general annulment statute was not available under 13 Del.C. § 101. In any event, the lesser degree statute is not relied upon and has not been considered.”

Keller-Minus v. Pakston (Del. 2019). · cites it 5× “She therefore argued that Peter and Lydia’s marriage should be declared void under 13 Del. C. § 101(b). (4) After briefing and a telephonic hearing, the Family Court dismissed the petition.”

Lipton, 2007 T.C. Summary Opinion 36 (1970). “Moreover, although we acknowledge that a bigamous marriage is voidable in Delaware, in this case the marriage was not entered into in Delaware but Florida, where such marriages subject the married party to a *51 felony charge and are therefore void.”

Samluk v. Gorecki Ex Rel. Samluk, 265 A.2d 46 (Del. Super. Ct. 1970). “13 Del. C. § 101, providing for the voiding of marriages, does not include therein the type of fraud with which we are here involved.”

— 13 Del. C. § 101(b) — 2 cases

Husband v. Wife, 257 A.2d 765 (Del. Super. Ct. 1969). “I assume the second statute was not relied upon here because the petitioner felt the service by publication provision in the general annulment statute was not available under 13 Del.C. § 101. In any event, the lesser degree statute is not relied upon and has not been considered.”

Keller-Minus v. Pakston (Del. 2019). “She therefore argued that Peter and Lydia’s marriage should be declared void under 13 Del. C. § 101(b). (4) After briefing and a telephonic hearing, the Family Court dismissed the petition.”

— 13 Del. C. § 101(b)(6) — 1 case

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.