(1) The Circuit Court shall enter its decree declaring the invalidity of a marriage entered into under the following circumstances:
(a) A party lacked capacity to consent to the marriage at the time the marriage was solemnized, either because of mental incapacity or deformity or because of the influence of alcohol, drugs, or other incapacitating substances, or a party was induced to enter into a marriage by force or duress, or by fraud involving the essentials of marriage;
(b) A party lacks the physical capacity to consummate the marriage by sexual intercourse, and the other party did not at the time the marriage was solemnized know of the incapacity;
(c) The marriage is prohibited.
(2) A declaration of invalidity under paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of subsection (1) may be sought by any of the following persons and must be commenced within the times specified, but only for the causes set out in paragraph (a) may a declaration of invalidity be sought after the death of either party to the marriage:
(a) For a reason set forth in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1), by party or by the legal representative of the party who lacked capacity to consent, who was the offended party or did not know of the incapacity, no later than 90 days after the petitioner obtained knowledge of the described condition;
(b) For the reason set forth in paragraph (c) of subsection (1), by either party, no later than one (1) year after the petitioner obtained knowledge of the described condition. History: Created 1972 Ky. Acts ch. 182, sec. 2.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1980–2024 · leading case:
Age v. Age, 340 S.W.3d 88 (Ky. Ct. App. 2011).
Age v. Age, 340 S.W.3d 88 (Ky. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “KRS 403.120, which explicates the reasons that a court may declare a marriage invalid, states: (a) A party lacked capacity to consent to the marriage at the time the marriage was solemnized, either because of mental incapacity or deformity or because of the influence of alcohol,…”
Marshall v. Marshall, 559 S.W.3d 381 (Ky. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 3× “2 Wife responded by moving to dismiss for lack of standing pursuant to KRS 403.120. The trial court denied Decedent's Family's motion to hold in abeyance and dismissed the case.”
J.N.R. v. O'Reilly, 264 S.W.3d 587 (Ky. 2008).
· cites it 2× “010, KRS 403.120, and KRS 403.140. KRS 403.041 and KRS 403.”
Ferguson v. Ferguson, 610 S.W.2d 925 (Ky. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 11× “The appellant’s argument is two-fold: the marriage entered into between his father and the appellee was bigamous, and therefore void rather than voidable, KRS 402.”
Mathews v. Mathews, 731 S.W.2d 832 (Ky. Ct. App. 1987).
“2d 925 (1980), which interprets KRS 403.120 as to precluding strangers from attacking the validity of a void marriage as well as a prohibited marriage.”
Russell Karl Falkenburg v. Elizabeth Sotelo Solano (Ky. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 8× “) 6 See KRS 403.120, which provides in pertinent part: -10- The family court found that Falkenburg “recounts in his pleadings that upon discovering [Solano’s] alleged fraud he left Texas and came to Kentucky” in early June 2019, but that Falkenburg waited until December 2019 to…”
Knott v. Garriott, 784 S.W.2d 603 (Ky. Ct. App. 1989).
“KRS 403.120. The judgment annulling same contained a finding that Wilbert “lacked capacity to consent to such a marriage.”
Thomas Jackson v. Meiry Edilla Ferreira De Araujo (Ky. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 4× “” Declarations of invalidity under KRS 403.120(1)(a) and (b) must be brought “no later than 90 days after the petitioner obtained knowledge of the described condition.”
Eck v. Eck, 793 S.W.2d 858 (Ky. Ct. App. 1990).
“030; KRS 403.120; see also Parks v. Parks, Ky.”
Artis Anderson v. Vanessa Dickson (6th Cir. 2017).
“Ky. Rev. Stat. § 403.120(2)(a). The annulment petition was filed by Wiley, a representative of CHFS, which was appointed as Reynolds’s guardian eleven days before the annulment petition was filed.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 403.120(1)(a) — 1 case
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 403.120(1)(c) — 1 case
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 403.120(2) — 1 case
Ferguson v. Ferguson, 610 S.W.2d 925 (Ky. Ct. App. 1980).
“The appellant’s argument is two-fold: the marriage entered into between his father and the appellee was bigamous, and therefore void rather than voidable, KRS 402.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 403.120(2)(a) — 4 cases
Russell Karl Falkenburg v. Elizabeth Sotelo Solano (Ky. Ct. App. 2022).
“) 6 See KRS 403.120, which provides in pertinent part: -10- The family court found that Falkenburg “recounts in his pleadings that upon discovering [Solano’s] alleged fraud he left Texas and came to Kentucky” in early June 2019, but that Falkenburg waited until December 2019 to…”
Artis Anderson v. Vanessa Dickson (6th Cir. 2017).
“Ky. Rev. Stat. § 403.120(2)(a). The annulment petition was filed by Wiley, a representative of CHFS, which was appointed as Reynolds’s guardian eleven days before the annulment petition was filed.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 403.120(2)(b) — 1 case
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 403.120(l)(c) — 1 case
Ferguson v. Ferguson, 610 S.W.2d 925 (Ky. Ct. App. 1980).
“The appellant’s argument is two-fold: the marriage entered into between his father and the appellee was bigamous, and therefore void rather than voidable, KRS 402.”
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.