The case of Bordone v. Bordone, 2025 PA Super 205 is one of significance and one that “hits close to home,” literally, as the case was originally decided by the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas.
The facts of the case are relatively extensive, but necessary to understand. In 1988, Wife married her first husband, and they separated in 1994. Husband and Wife began their relationship in 1994, and Husband was aware that Wife was still legally married to her first husband. Husband and Wife began to cohabitate in Philadelphia in 1995. Wife’s first husband served her with divorce papers in 2000, and their divorce was finalized in 2000. Husband and Wife were married on August 10, 2000, in Connecticut, and believed they were entering into a valid marriage. The parties lived together in both New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The parties lived together as a married couple for more than 20 years and had 4 children together. The parties decided to separate, and upon their separation, Husband was made aware that Wife and her first husband were not divorced until August 11, 2000, a day after the parties were married in Connecticut.
Husband filed a complaint in annulment, and Wife filed preliminary objections. Connecticut case law holds that a marriage is void by bigamy, as was the case here.
The case law further states that there cannot be a cure to said marriage.
On the contrary, although Pennsylvania statute and case law hold that a marriage is void as a result of bigamy, however, there are ways to cure such as living together as husband and wife in good faith as the parties did here. This instance created a choice of law interest where, ultimately, the Court decided that Pennsylvania had the stronger interest in the matter, as the only tie Connecticut had was the fact that the wedding took place there. In turn, the interest was held by Pennsylvania, and the fact that the parties lived together in good faith, got married in good faith, and had children in good faith. There was nothing in this matter that showed the parties did not believe themselves to be married. The marriage was cured due to these actions by Husband and Wife.
Therefore, Husband’s petition was dismissed.
Ultimately, this is a lesson to all those who are going to get married . . . it may be worth your while to consult with a member of Obermayer’s family law team!
The information contained in this publication should not be construed as legal advice, is not a substitute for legal counsel, and should not be relied on as such. For legal advice or answers to specific questions, please contact one of our attorneys.
Ed is an attorney in Obermayer’s Family Law Department. He focuses his practice exclusively on matrimonial law, handling cases involving divorce, custody, parenting time, child and spousal support, prenuptial agreements, cohabitation disputes,...
Read More by Author
