Coverage note: this corpus holds the
consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check
palegis.us.
§ 3304. Grounds for annulment of void marriages.
(a) General rule.--Where there has been no confirmation by cohabitation following the removal of an impediment,
the supposed or alleged marriage of a person shall be deemed void in the following
cases:
(1) Where either party at the time of such marriage had an existing spouse and the former
marriage had not been annulled nor had there been a divorce except where that party
had obtained a decree of presumed death of the former spouse.
(2) Where the parties to such marriage are related within the degrees of consanguinity
prohibited by section 1304(e) (relating to restrictions on issuance of license).
(3) Where either party to such marriage was incapable of consenting by reason of insanity
or serious mental disorder or otherwise lacked capacity to consent or did not intend
to consent to the marriage.
(4) Where either party to a purported common-law marriage was under 18 years of age.
(b) Procedures.--In all cases of marriages which are void, the marriage may be annulled as set forth
in section 3303 (relating to annulment of void and voidable marriages) or its invalidity
may be declared in any collateral proceeding.
Cross References. Section 3304 is referred to in section 1702 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1992–2024 · leading case:
Covington v. Covington, 617 A.2d 1318 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992).
Covington v. Covington, 617 A.2d 1318 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992).
· cites it 2× “e was dead or that the former marriage has been annulled or terminated by a divorce, or without knowledge of the former marriage, they shall, after the impediment to their marriage has been removed by the death of the other party to the former marriage or by annulment or…”
Repella, S. v. Repella, S. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
“” 23 Pa.C.S. § 3304. 2 See Pa.R.C.P. 1920.15(a) (“The defendant may set forth in an answer under the heading ‘Counterclaim’ a cause of action of divorce or for annulment and, whether the defendant does so or not, may set forth any other matter which under the Divorce Code may be…”
Rosmarin, B. v. Sherpa, L. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
“See Orphans’ Court Opinion, 3/7/2017 (rejecting Executrix’s theories (1) that the Decedent and Sherpa’s marriage was void pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 3304(a)(3); (2) that the marriage should be deemed void ab initio due to the fact it was an allegedly illegal contract that violates…”
In Re: Adpt. of V.S.T., Appeal of: J.S.T. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2024).
“§ 4301; 23 Pa.C.S. § 3304(a)(1). However, in order to excuse the relinquishment requirement under Section 2901, the facts must also establish that “the purpose of Section 2711(d) would nevertheless be fulfilled or unnecessary .”
Washington, S. v. Hamilton, H. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015).
“However, the section of his brief dedicated to this issue does not discuss annulment or 23 Pa.C.S. § 3304 (grounds for annulment of void marriages).”
Konevitch v. Hancock, 20 Pa. D. & C.4th 321 (1993).
“See 23 Pa.C.S. §§3304(b) and 3306. 2 Accordingly, the following order is entered.”
In re Acker, 48 Pa. D. & C.4th 489 (2000).
“Those principles which guide this court are substantially stated in 23 Pa.C.S. §3304 which provides in pertinent part: “[Wjhere there has been no confirmation by cohabitation following the removal of an impediment the supposed or alleged marriage of a person shall be deemed void…”
— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3304(a)(1) — 1 case
In Re: Adpt. of V.S.T., Appeal of: J.S.T. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2024).
“§ 4301; 23 Pa.C.S. § 3304(a)(1). However, in order to excuse the relinquishment requirement under Section 2901, the facts must also establish that “the purpose of Section 2711(d) would nevertheless be fulfilled or unnecessary .”
— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3304(a)(3) — 1 case
Rosmarin, B. v. Sherpa, L. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
“See Orphans’ Court Opinion, 3/7/2017 (rejecting Executrix’s theories (1) that the Decedent and Sherpa’s marriage was void pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 3304(a)(3); (2) that the marriage should be deemed void ab initio due to the fact it was an allegedly illegal contract that violates…”
— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3304(b) — 1 case
Konevitch v. Hancock, 20 Pa. D. & C.4th 321 (1993).
“See 23 Pa.C.S. §§3304(b) and 3306. 2 Accordingly, the following order is entered.”
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.