## Facts

- Barbara R. Duncan and John H. Duncan participated in a 1989 marriage ceremony in North Carolina officiated by Hawk Littlejohn, who was ordained through the Universal Life Church and held himself out as a Cherokee medicine man.
- After a lawyer expressed concern about the 1989 ceremony’s validity, the parties had a second ceremony in 2001 at a Presbyterian church.
- The parties lived together for many years and repeatedly held themselves out as married, including in personal and financial planning.
- In 2005, Barbara filed an action seeking divorce-related relief, alleging a 1989 marriage date; John asserted the officiant lacked legal authority and argued the marriage date should be 2001.
- In a 2007 order, the trial court determined the 1989 ceremony resulted in a valid marriage for purposes of the Chapter 50 action and concluded John was barred from contesting validity.
- John appealed the 2007 order and subsequent rulings that depended on the marriage date, including determinations bearing on equitable distribution and spousal-support classifications.

## Issues

1. Whether the 1989 ceremony, given the officiant’s status, created a valid marriage under North Carolina law or was instead void or voidable.
2. Whether a claimed defect in solemnization could be raised collaterally in divorce-related litigation rather than through a direct proceeding aimed at the marriage’s validity.
3. Whether judicial estoppel and equitable estoppel barred John from denying the 1989 marriage after years of treating the relationship as a marriage.
4. Whether using 1989 as the marriage date properly controlled divorce-related consequences such as property classification and dependent/supporting spouse determinations.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s treatment of 15 October 1989 as the marriage date for the Chapter 50 action.
- The court held that any defect based on the officiant’s authority rendered the marriage voidable, not void.
- The court held that a voidable marriage is treated as valid unless annulled in a proper direct proceeding, and it could not be attacked collaterally in this divorce action.
- The court applied judicial estoppel to prevent John from adopting a litigation position inconsistent with his prior conduct and representations that treated the parties as married since 1989.
- The court applied equitable estoppel based on Barbara’s reliance on the parties’ long-standing representation and treatment of their relationship as a valid marriage.
- Because the attack on the 1989 marriage was barred, the related financial rulings premised on the 1989 marriage date were upheld.

## Legal Principles

- Defects associated with an officiant’s authority to solemnize a marriage generally render the marriage voidable rather than void.
- A voidable marriage is regarded as valid unless and until it is set aside in a proper direct proceeding challenging the marriage’s validity.
- Judicial estoppel bars a party from taking a position inconsistent with a prior position where the change would impair the integrity of the judicial process.
- Equitable estoppel bars a party from denying a marital status where that party’s representations or conduct induced the other party to rely on the marriage to their detriment.
- When estoppel prevents a spouse from denying the marriage, the marriage date may be used to resolve divorce-related questions tied to marital duration, including property classification and spousal-support status.

## Conclusion

The court treated the 1989 ceremony as creating a voidable marriage that remained effective absent a direct annulment action and held that both judicial and equitable estoppel prevented the husband from repudiating the marriage date in divorce-related litigation, leaving intact the trial court’s use of 1989 for property and support determinations.


Duncan v. Duncan, 754 S.E.2d 451 (N.C. Ct. App. 2014)