SSR 66-4: SECTION 202(g)(1). -- MOTHER'S INSURANCE BENEFITS -- TERMINATION DUE TO MARRIAGE
20 CFR 404.326
SSR 66-4
THIS RULING MODIFIES SSR 64-4, C.B. 1064, p. 11
- SSR 64-4 is modified only to the extent that the statement therein relating to the law of Wisconsin as to the validity of marriages contracted outside of Wisconsin in violation of section 245.10 of the Wisconsin Statutes Annotated is contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin In re Ferguson's Estate, 130 N.W. 2d 300 (Wis. 1964).
In SSR 64-4, C.B. 1964, p. 11, it is stated that section 245.10 Wisconsin Statutes Annotated (as re-enacted in 1961 by Chapter 505, Wisconsin Laws 1961) provides in effect that when either applicant for a license to marry has minor children of a prior marriage not in his custody and is obligated by court order or judgment to support such children, the marriage license shall not be issued without the order of a court having divorce jurisdiction in the county of application. It further stated that where a person subject to this provision marries without such court order the marriage is void in Wisconsin irrespective of whether the marriage is contracted in Wisconsin or elsewhere.
However, in the recent case of In re Ferguson's Estate, 130 N.W. 2d 300 (Wis. 1964) the Supreme Court of Wisconsin held that section 245.10 Wisconsin Statutes Annotated has no applicability to marriages contracted outside Wisconsin. Therefore, a marriage in violation of that section contracted outside of Wisconsin would be void in Wisconsin if void where contracted.
In SSR 64-4, supra, it was pointed out, that since the issue was whether claimant's remarriage was cause for termination of benefits, the Administration, under the general conflict of laws rule, applies the law of the place where the marriage was contracted to determine the validity of such marriage. Therefore, it was held that the marriage involved in that case was cause for terminating claimant's benefits since it was contracted outside Wisconsin and was valid where contracted (Iowa). Thus, the holding, since it is not based on the law of Wisconsin but on the general conflict of laws rule, is correct and not affected by the decision in the case of In re Ferguson's Estate, supra. However, SSR 64-4, supra, is modified to the extent that the statement therein as to the law of Wisconsin is in conflict with the decision in the case of In re Ferguson's Estate.