Would economic and healthcare-related pressure constitute duress in the annulment of a marriage? I've found the legal definition of duress to be quite well-specified in the case of criminal law, but little of that seems directly applicable to the civil domain. That said, I'm unsure as to if a situation like the following might qualify: Let us suppose Alice and Bob are in a relatively new relationship, but very much in love. However, Alice is unable to work due to a serious, but treatable (although not under government-sponsored healthcare) condition. Bob, on the other hand, has a decent job with excellent insurance coverage, but it extends only to family and spouses (ie, not domestic partners). Under normal circumstance, the two would never consider marriage so early-on, but the combined stress of Alice's condition worsening or the economic pressure of Bob paying for her treatments out-of-pocket has lead the couple to see marriage as the only viable option. If their relationship comes to an end at some point, would they be able to seek annulment under duress instead of facing the legal ramifications of divorce?
Short Answer: This is Not Duress This would not constitute duress or a ground for an annulment under U.S. law. In general, economic considerations, or moral duties arising from love and affection, or a felt obligation to &quot;do the right thing&quot; following a pregnancy, or a need to bring other family members (or oneself) out of dire poverty, do not constitute duress that would constitute a ground for an annulment. Duress would typically have to involve a threat of unlawful physical harm to the person getting married, or to a loved one of a person getting married. Historically Duress Was Not A Ground For An Annulment Historically, duress was not considered a ground for an annulment at all. For example, historically, the duress of a &quot;shotgun marriage&quot; (literally, a threat to kill the man who got an unmarried woman pregnant if he didn't marry her), would not have been considered a ground for annulment, although it might be today. Similarly, if a king married one of his daughters to the son of another king in exchange for not invading and ruining his country, the daughter could not annul that marriage, even if it was entered into because the two kings agreed that she would be killed if she did not agree and told her so, despite the fact that both she and her father were under duress at the time. Annulments Are Rare And Are Rarely Sought For Duress Annulment of a facially valid non-common law marriage is very rare. For example, in 2017, there were 308 marriage annulment cases in Colorado and 5 civil union annulment cases, in a year in which Colorado had a population of 5,607,000 people. In the same year it has 25,290 divorce cases, 922 legal separation cases, 6,308 cases seeking an adjudication of parental rights and responsibilities involving unmarried couples, 1,957 paternity cases, 56 civil union dissolution cases, 5 civil union legal separation cases, and 6 cases seeking judicial permission for a minor to marry. There are approximately 41,500 marriages each year in Colorado, so the annulment rate is about 7 per thousand marriages in Colorado, which would be fairly typical nationally. There are about 12 annulments per thousand divorces in Colorado. Duress would be grounds for an annulment in only a tiny share of those rare annulment cases that are filed. In part, in the modern U.S., this is because the wide availability of unilateral no fault divorce, and the abolition of most marital immunities from civil and criminal liability, makes the use of duress to compel someone to marry a pretty futile exercise, that has a high potential for criminal law consequences for someone who attempts to use duress to force someone to get married. Some typical grounds annulments other than duress would involve (in approximate order of frequency) (1) the marriage was entered into under conditions that one or both of the parties felt was a joke or were temporarily too impaired to really understand because they were drunk or under the influence of drugs (legal or otherwise), or (2) an individual who was married didn't have the capacity to appreciate fully what marriage means due to a developmental disability, or due to dementia, or (3) the couple is legally prohibited from marrying (e.g. due to age, because they are a long lost brother and sister, or mother and son, or one or both of the parties was married to someone else at the time), or (4) the marriage was entered into based upon a misunderstanding of one or both parties regarding the sex or gender of the other party (i.e. a woman who thought she was marrying a cisgender man but actually married a transgender man) or the identity of the party (the marriage ceremony was with the wrong twin, for example). Duress would be a less common ground for an annulment than the first three reasons, but might be more common than the fourth reason set forth above. Annulment And The Doctrine Of Laches Also, annulment is equitable relief that can generally be barred by the doctrine of laches. For example, if two people are married via a facially legal marriage license and aren't legally prohibited from marrying, did so while tripping on LSD and thinking that they were just joking, but then continue to live as husband and wife for eight years and have kids together, a court would probably deny them an annulment, even if an annulment would have been granted if the issue had been raised immediately, even in a state that is not a common law marriage state. Similarly, a marriage entered into at age 13 that was legally recognized due to a lie on a marriage license application, would probably be annulled at age 18 or 20, but laches would probably prohibit an annulment of that marriage at age 40. The &quot;put everyone back where they started prior to marriage&quot; premise of an annulment is easy to implement when people have been legally married for only a few days or months, especially if they have never actually shared their lives economically and haven't had kids together during the marriage, but is much harder to implement when they have lived together for a long time as husband and wife. Footnote On Sham Marriages For Immigration Purposes As an aside, an immigration agency determination that a marriage is a sham that does not afford the immigrant eligibility for citizenship is rarely, if ever, grounds for an annulment under other civil or criminal laws. For example, a sham marriage determination by immigration officials would not end eligibility to file a joint tax return, or end the ability to claim a spousal privilege to exclude a spouse's testimony in a court case, or change the presumption of paternity for children born during the marriage. Canon Law Compared Duress is grounds for an annulment for religious purposes under Roman Catholic canon law (Canon 1103), as are the circumstances described in the OP (Canon 1101, Section 2), which aren't considered duress under canon law either. But, a church annulment would have no secular legal effect; it would only affect a person's status in regard to Roman Catholic prohibitions against divorce. Why Seek An Annulment? It is also unclear what you think that the legal ramifications of a divorce as opposed to an annulment would be in this case. The biggest would seem to be that Alice would lose any right to alimony or an equitable property division if this were an annulment rather than a divorce, so generally speaking, an annulment would be harmful to her legally. Historically, annulment was, in part, an extraordinary remedy for cases where divorce was simply not available at all, at least without special legislation authorizing the divorce of a particular man and a particular woman, and in part, a natural outgrowth of the process of a court trying to determine as a factual finding, whether or not two people had gotten married, or had not gotten married. But, in an age where no fault divorce is widely available on an essentially unilateral basis, the need for annulments has largely evaporated.
If a line in your will bequeaths something that you don't have the power to give (e.g. you bequeath something that you don't own at the time of your death), that line has no legal effect. If I died and left you the house at 10 Downing Street in London, for example, you wouldn't actually be getting it. If your will contains enough of those lines and/or they seem excessively unreasonable, it may cause the validity of the will to be challenged on the basis that you weren't competent to prepare and sign it. If the people reading it think it's reasonable, it may have a social effect based on what it conveys to them, which could lead to voluntary compliance with your wish (especially if the main obstacle to that being realized is a mistaken understanding of and desire to respect your wishes). That could help make peace, for example, if a surviving parent's remarriage would otherwise be opposed by children (or the surviving partner) or others based solely on a mistaken understanding of the wishes of the deceased. It could also make for a really awkward moment, depending on the views of and relationships between survivors. Addressing user662852's comment on the question: You can also use a will to name a guardian for anyone you have guardianship over, which is usually more important for children (e.g. see "Why Every Parent Needs a Will.").
united-states Almost every U.S. jurisdiction (perhaps all of them) recognize the affirmative defense of &quot;duress&quot; to a criminal prosecution. The precise scope of what actions are sufficient to establish that duress is present vary. A credible threat that someone will kill you or your child is generally sufficient in every state that recognizes the defense. There is also a closely related defense known as &quot;choice of evils.&quot; This said, eight years is a very long time and usually the defense of duress is available only if the threat was imminent or immediate. So, it is probably less likely than not that a finder of fact would conclude that it was impossible to seek to involve authorities in the situation, for all of the time in that eight year time period, without reasonably risking the threatened harm. Also, while you call his acts &quot;treasonous&quot;, in reality the crime of treason is defined very narrowly in the U.S. Constitution to taking up arms against your country and providing aid and comfort to people who are doing so, and the fact pattern suggested probably does not constitute treason under U.S. law. Finally, while his circumstances only dubiously are sufficient to assert a defense of duress over the sustained eight year time period, this doesn't mean that authorities couldn't choose to refrain from prosecuting him, or that the couldn't seek only lesser charges with mitigating circumstances conceded in sentencing, in an exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Often this exercise of prosecutorial discretion would be conditioned upon cooperation in the case brought against other defendants in related cases. In an exceptional case, the pardon power could be invoked for relieve him from criminal liability as has been done in some past insurrections in U.S. history like the Whiskey Rebellion and the U.S. Civil War. Even treason is a pardonable offense at the federal level. At the federal level in the United States, the President can issue a pardon even if someone has not yet been convicted of the crime in question. england While I am not an expert on the exact details of English law, in general, it is harder to claim the defenses of &quot;duress&quot; and &quot;choice of evils&quot; under English criminal law than it is under the criminal laws of most U.S. jurisdictions. See here.
The basic option that one has when a contract has been breached is that the harmed party sues the damaging party, seeking compensation. Sometimes, contracts contain arbitration clauses which limits how disputes can be resolved – for example "disputes shall be subject to binding arbitration by Jones Arbicorp". Whether or not such a clause is legal would depend on the jurisdiction. A clause which states that there can be no legal remediation of breach means that the contract would be unenforceable, and is not in fact a contract. Courts generally strive to construe anything that looks like a contract as being a contract, and they can set aside a particular aspect of a contract. If the other party attempted to have the suit thrown out because of a "there is no remedy" clause, the court would most likely find that to not be a valid term in the contract. It does depends on what exactly the clause says. Your attorney would need to look at the language of the contract to advise you as to the best course of action (asking us for legal advice makes the question off-topic).
There is no prospect for equitable relief in such an outcome. The Texas state government enjoys sovereign immunity, except as specified under the Tort Claims Act. Under that law, immunity is waived only in the case of damage caused by negligence of a state employee, and is limited primarily to vehicle accidents and physical injuries. So the state cannot be sued for passing a law found to be unconstitutional. An individual would not enjoy such immunity, but given the law, there is no identifiable defendant to seek relief from (everybody is a potential defendant). An former abortion provider who now declines to perform an abortion can't be sued, because doctors in general have no obligation to perform particular medical procedures (most doctors in Texas won't perform an abortion, even before SB8), and the course will not render a judgment against a doctor on the grounds that they obeyed an existing law but should have known that it would be found unconstitutional.
Yes. The term for this situation is a "civil dispute." It can be resolved via a civil claim. In New Jersey, for claims under $3000, you can use the Small Claims courts. The process is designed to be followed without the assistance of counsel. Let the internet be your guide.
You seem to have put a lot of thought into this - which is good. However, the short answer is: There is no legal solution. To address your points: And legally, my future wife has the right to divorce me even if I did nothing wrong (no-fault). Yes (at least in most jurisdictions). And then, according to the US Census Bureau [1], mothers usually get primary custody (unless she is on drugs or abusive, which she isn't). And according to the Indiana Parenting Guidelines [2], babies only get one night per week with the non-custodial parent. And even as a teenager, only alternating weekends. Here, it depends. What you describe is indeed what happens often, but not always. Rules vary a lot, and change, but there is an increasing trend to have joint custody in case of a divorce. The details vary, but joint custody can extend to joint physical custody or shared parenting, where both parents take turns looking after the child. This is possible in the United States. In practice, in case of separation the parents will have to work out a parenting plan - ideally together, or in court if needs be. What the result is will depend on circumstances, and on the opinion of the court what is in the children's best interest. This may or may not mean joint physical custody. Child support payments are based on custody, so I would need to pay her child support. And since she always planned on her husband financially supporting her, then I would need to pay her alimony too. And because of imputed income, I couldn't afford to take a lower-paying job with more flexibility. Again, this depends. For example, with joint physical custody, there may be only small or no child support payments if both parents care for the children about equal time. And even if child support is due, there may be no alimony payments if the mother can work (even if she chooses not to). Again, a lot depends on the specific case and jurisdiction. Also, while it is not possible to reduce child support in a pre-nup (because theses payments belong to the child), you can (to some extent) limit alimony payments in a pre-nup. Is there any way out of this situation? How can I ensure, starting now before my children are born, that their primary caregiver is me? Here we are leaving legal territory. The short answer is: There is no way to ensure this, certainly not using legal means. The only good approach is to get to know your partner first, and make sure you have similar views on how to approach parenting. If she wants to be a stay-at-home mom, and you want to share both work and parenting (such as in a shared earning/shared parenting marriage) then you need to think (and speak) about how to reconcile these views. You may find that you are just not compatible on that point. Then take appropriate consequences. To put it plainly: In my opinion, if you do not trust your partner to respect your wishes on parenting together, she is probably not the right person for you to have children with.
They recently took me to court (I am now 20) to have me start paying for the bill, under distress I signed paperwork stating that I'd start paying them, however I find this entire situation very aggravating. Short Answer You are almost surely screwed at this point and can't do anything but abide by the settlement that you agreed to when you signed the paperwork. Preface Regarding The Applicable Jurisdiction I am answering based upon the majority rules of law in U.S. states, because there is almost no other country in the world where you could end up in this financial situation due to universal healthcare systems that exist in most countries other than the United States. Also, this isn't an area of law with a great deal of state to state variation, although the law isn't exactly the same in every single U.S. state. The Minority Defense You quite possibly had a minority defense before you signed the paperwork. The minority defense is based upon an inability to give adequate consent to a contract. Whether the minority defense would have worked in this case, however, is a close call, because there are exceptions to the rule that would probably apply in this case. Settlement, Ratification and Duress The legal standard for "duress" in contract law usually means situations where there is literally a gun to your head or they're going to kill your dog or something like that, not the kind of economic pressure or persistent harassing collection efforts that I suspect you are referring to in this case. Of course, if they did steal your dog and threaten to kill it if you didn't sign the paperwork, then you really would have signed it under duress and you should probably both take legal action to repudiate that paperwork (because agreements entered into under duress are generally voidable, rather than void), and you should probably report the incident to the police as a crime. So, anyway, the paperwork you signed is probably enforceable, despite the pressure that they put on you to sign it. Once you sign a settlement agreement as an adult (which is almost surely what you did) you have ratified the agreement made when you were a minor and forfeit any way to fight it. You are stuck with what you agreed to at this point and there is nothing you can do about it short of going bankrupt. I would not recommend going bankrupt over a debts owed to a single medical provider unless that debt is so huge that ruining your credit for seven years and paying a bankruptcy lawyer is worth it to get out of this debt. For most twenty-year-olds facing debts for a few chiropractor treatments this would not make sense. Lesson learned: Talk to a lawyer before you sign paperwork, not afterwards, because once you've signed on the dotted line, there is usually little or nothing that a lawyer can do to help you at that point. Guarantors As a guarantor of the obligation to pay for your care, your mother would no doubt be on the hook in any case, whether or not you settled, and whether or not you went bankrupt. Unless the settlement agreement that you signed says otherwise, they can still attempt to collect the bill from her as well as from you. Of course, as you make payments towards the total balance due, the total balance due goes down. Your mother, as a guarantor, is only obligated to pay the portion of the bills that remain unpaid when they try to collect the debt from her. The Necessaries Exception To The Minority Defense Even though the minority defense might apply in this situation, most states recognize an exception to the minority defense when a purchase of "necessaries" is made by a minor. Bills for medical care would usually count as "necessaries", because you would have had no choice but to buy if you had been an adult anyway, so your lack of consent to pay isn't something that caused you material harm. Honestly, in the medical industry, an agreement in advance to pay a negotiated price is the exception rather than the norm. Often the providers themselves have no real clear idea what their patients are billed for their services, although chiropractors tend to be more informed about the financial arrangements than medical doctors in most cases. Void Contracts v. Voidable Contracts In any case, minority is a defense to a contractual obligation that would ordinarily only make the contract voidable, rather than void. In other words, a minor can repudiate a contract that is voidable on account of minority and successfully get out of it within a reasonable time of becoming an adult (or sooner while you are still a minor through a parent or guardian or next friend), but it is not automatically invalid. There is a good chance that a court would consider a two year delay in trying to repudiate the contractual obligation too long, even if it concluded that the necessaries doctrine did not apply because, for example, the court considered this to be elective, luxury care rather than medically necessary services. Unjust Enrichment Claims Also, in addition to suing for breach of contract, the chiropractor might be able to sue for quantum meruit. This legal theory is not based upon mutual consent the way a contract claim is, although this is sometimes called a "quasi-contract" or "implied contract" claim (it is also sometimes called a "restitution" or "unjust enrichment" claim). As a result, minority is not usually a defense to a quantum meruit claim. Instead, a quantum meruit claim is based upon preventing you from being unjustly enriched, (1) from benefits that you received, (2) that were not unwelcome, (3) from the efforts of someone else who did that work, (4) with a reasonable expectation of being compensated for the work, (5) in situations where there is no binding contract between the parties. (Different lawyers and different courts might break up these elements into more or fewer components, but the gist of the claim would be the same in pretty much any state.) In a quantum meruit case, damages are based upon the fair market value of the services rendered, rather than an agreement of the parties, since there was no mutually agreed price under a contract that they are seeking to enforce. Quantum meruit claims are frequently brought as a backup claim to a claim for breach of contract by failing to pay for services, in cases where the contract claim may be infirm for reasons such as minority.