O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 19-3-43 (2019)

Marriage in another state; effect in this state

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) All marriages solemnized in another state by parties intending at the time to reside in this state shall have the same legal consequences and effect as if solemnized in this state. Parties residing in this state may not evade any of the laws of this state as to marriage, including, but not limited to, the age limitations provided for in Code Section 19-3-2, by going into another state for the solemnization of the marriage ceremony.

(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this Code section, the age limitations provided for in Code Section 19-3-2 shall not apply to a lawful marriage solemnized in another state or country prior to either party residing in this state.

History

Orig. Code 1863, § 1668; Code 1868, § 1709; Code 1873, § 1710; Code 1882,

§ 1710; Civil Code 1895, § 2424; Civil Code 1910, § 2943; Code 1933, § 53-214; Ga. L. 2019, p. 558, § 1-6/HB 228.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Valid marriage in another state is valid here, although one party labors under disability in this state, provided the parties acted in good faith and did not go to the foreign state for the mere purpose of evading the provisions of Georgia law. Brown v. Sheridan, 83 Ga. App. 725, 64 S.E.2d 636, 1951 Ga. App. LEXIS 948 (1951); Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Wacht, 84 Ga. App. 602, 66 S.E.2d 757, 1951 Ga. App. LEXIS 735 (1951). Effect of marriage contrary to public policy of state. - While the lex loci,

as a general rule, governs questions of marriage, it is subject, in practice, to the great controlling idea, that it will not be enforced, by comity, if it involves anything immoral, contrary to general policy, or violative of the conscience of the state called on to give it effect. Eubanks v. Banks, 34 Ga. 407, 1866 Ga. LEXIS 114 (1866).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL If alleged marriage is valid when performed, it is valid in this state, regardless of the fact that the license was

invalid where the ceremony was performed or that no license at all was taken out. 1965-66 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 66-240.

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 52 Am. Jur. 2d, Marriage, § 62 et seq. C.J.S. 55 C.J.S., Marriage, § 3.

ALR. Recognition of foreign marriage as affected by the conditions or manner of dissolving it under the foreign law, or the

toleration of polygamous marriages, 74 A.L.R. 1533. Recognition of foreign marriage as affected by policy in respect of incestuous marriages, 117 A.L.R. 186. Public policy of forum against recognition of marriage valid (or voidable only) by the law of the place where it was celebrated, as affected by fact that neither of

the parties was domiciled at the forum at the time of the marriage, 127 A.L.R. 437. Conflict of laws as to validity of marriage attacked because of nonage, 71 A.L.R.2d 687. Recognition by forum state of marriage which, although invalid where contracted, would have been valid if contracted within forum state, 82 A.L.R.3d 1240.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1985–2010 · leading case: Norman v. Ault, 695 S.E.2d 633 (Ga. 2010).
Norman v. Ault, 695 S.E.2d 633 (Ga. 2010). · cites it 2× “See also OCGA § 19-3-43. Compare Bell v. Bell, 206 Ga.”
Perry v. Perry, 326 S.E.2d 481 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 19-3-43. Because there was no genuine issue of material fact that appellee was the lawful widow of Arthur W.”
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.