Can an incapacitated individual consent to marriage? A friend was to be married on Saturday afternoon. He suffered a debilitating stroke Saturday morning. Today he can respond to verbal prompts to move his left hand a bit. This occurred in the USA in the state of South Carolina but I’m also interested in law related to the issue from other areas. Could a hospital room marriage take place, given his limited physical ability, that is legally binding in every way?
In england-and-wales this would fall within the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and depends on whether he lacks the mental not physical, capacity to make the decision for himself. Can he: Understand the information relevant to the decision Retain that information Use or weigh that information as part of the process of making the decision Communicate that decision (whether by talking, using sign language or any other means). If the answer to any of these is&quot;no&quot; then he cannot lawfully give true consent. Although the Act allows for others, such as a power of attorney, to make decisions on behalf of someone lacking the mental capacity, s.27 specifically excludes the decision to marry.
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.").
Whether any person, provided that they are in full legal capacity (not a minor, not incapacitated etc.), needs a lawyer, is to be decided by that person. Even criminal defendants can be self-represented if they've got the balls for it — the law does not impose a requirement to have a lawyer when the person does not want it. Considerations as to whether to have a lawyer are very fact-specific and person-specific. Assuming that Steve is not literate in law, it would probably be good idea for him to get a lawyer before answering any questions. The facts are such that it is not totally impossible that he may be charged, especially if he inadvertently says something not in his favor, or otherwise says something favorable to McRobberface.
You have &quot;standing&quot; to take legal action, given the particularized injury you've suffered. If you're interested in doing so, you would talk to a civil-rights or disability-rights lawyer. There are plenty of lawyers who specialize in this sort of work, so you should make sure you're talking to someone who is well-versed in these laws. However, I suspect that you'll find that you are not on particularly strong footing as a legal matter. It is not clear that your wife is &quot;disabled&quot; as defined by the ADA, which asks how an impairment affects your life functions rather than whether your doctor believes you are impaired. I'm not sure what the status of this question is in California, but some courts have ruled that PTSD is not always a disability within the meaning of the statute. See, e.g., Tinsley v. Caterpillar Fin. Servs., Corp., 766 F. App'x 337, 342 (6th Cir. 2019) (&quot;We must now examine whether Tinsley's PTSD sufficiently limited her ability to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs. The evidence demonstrates that it did not.&quot;). But even if she is disabled within the meaning of the statute, that doesn't necessarily mean the hotel has done anything wrong. The ADA does not require hotels to give disabled guests whatever rooms they want; it only requires them to make &quot;reasonable accommodations&quot; for their guests' disabilities. If I were representing the hotel, I'd feel pretty good arguing that creating a perfectly secluded environment and reprogramming the hotel phone system to prevent unforeseeable triggering events is not a reasonable accommodation. However, a good ADA lawyer could probably come up with some good arguments why the hotel should have done more. But the final problem is that lawyers may not be particularly interested in the case because it sounds like a very low-damages situation. That said, this analysis is only under the ADA, which is what I'm already familiar with. California quite likely has its own disability-accommodation laws, and I'd bet they're more favorable to the disabled than the ADA. You'd need to talk to a local disability-lawyer to get a full understanding of your rights.
This happened despite the fact that the marriage and Bible verses requirement were almost surely illegal and similar things have happened on and off, mostly in rural courts with non-attorney judges, for pretty much as long as the U.S. has been a country (and earlier). The trick is that the orders take effect unless someone appeals them, and since deals like this are usually a result of a plea bargain which waives rights to an appeal, and even if the result is simply imposed by the judge, one has to consider if taking the case up on appeal, having the sentence reversed, and then having it remanded to the same judge for resentencing would be worse from the perspective of the defendant, given the broad authority of a sentencing judge in a minor case like this one, than simply accepting the illegal sentence. Also, cases that aren't appealed never create precedents and aren't generally available among resources used by legal researchers, so they systemically evade documentation in easily available sources.
The relevant law for you is ORC 4705.07. (A) No person who is not licensed to practice law in this state shall do any of the following: (1) Hold that person out in any manner as an attorney at law; (2) Represent that person orally or in writing, directly or indirectly, as being authorized to practice law; (3) Commit any act that is prohibited by the supreme court as being the unauthorized practice of law. (This is a prime example of legal language that cannot be interpreted on the basis of rules of English -- the issue is the meaning of "that person"). This does not prohibit you from giving an opinion as to what the law is, which is a right protected under the First Amendment. You would be in trouble if you said "This is my advice as a lawyer". Section 2 b.t.w. says that only the Supreme Court (of Ohio) can determine if a person has committed an act on their don't-do-it list. Rule 7 pertaining to their procedure is here. Section 2 therein enumerates the relevant categories, which fall under the categories "rendering of legal services for another" and "Holding out to the public or otherwise representing oneself as authorized to practice law in Ohio", which is what the statute says.
If both parties are legal, permanent residents of California, their marriage is recognized under Californian law no matter where it originated (provided that the marriage doesn’t violate Californian law, e.g. if Alice were a minor). Alice and Bob would file for divorce in California and the matter would be adjudicated under a Californian court and under Californian law. After these proceedings, Alice and Bob would still be married in Afghanistan (and maybe other foreign countries? That’s a tricky question, so if someone else can figure it out please leave a comment!) but the US would cease to recognize the marriage. In no case would either a Californian or Afghan court make a ruling under the other’s laws. As far as child custody, property, etc. the divorce would essentially proceed as a normal divorce case, although things could become complicated if Alice and Bob own property in Afghanistan, which would usually still be able to be appropriated by a Californian court but, once again, the matter is complex since Afghanistan still recognizes the marriage. As you can tell, a divorce of this nature is not as complicated as one might think, but nevertheless could create some complicated legal situations. Also, marriage is regulated state-by-state, so other states may have different rules regarding foreign marriages. As always, the best path of action is to consult an attorney who specializes in divorce. Edit: A commenter brought up the issue of whether California would recognize a marriage where both parties weren’t present. While this varies by state, California generally doesn’t allow so-called “proxy marriage” unless one of the parties is deployed in the military.
You may file a motion for a continuance (here is a sample help page). You have to provide as much information as is required to persuade the judge to grant the continuance. Nobody knows exactly how much information that is, and probably only your lawyer (I assume you are doing this yourself) would have a reasonable idea. Simply saying &quot;I can't cope&quot; is insufficient, and something that implies an open-ended delay (&quot;Can we put this on hold until they discover a cure?&quot;) will not suffice.