## Facts

- Carl Glenn Pickard, Jr. (plaintiff) and Jane Edwards Pickard (defendant) participated in a marriage ceremony on June 7, 1991.
- The ceremony was performed in the Cherokee tradition by Hawk Littlejohn, described as a Cherokee “medicine man” who conducted ceremonies consistent with Cherokee practices.
- Before performing the ceremony, Littlejohn obtained a certificate stating he was ordained as a minister in the Universal Life Church.
- The parties also applied for and received a North Carolina marriage license.
- For about eleven years after the ceremony, Carl and Jane lived together and held themselves out as husband and wife.
- In 1998, Carl initiated an adult-adoption proceeding to adopt Jane’s adult biological daughter.
- In the adoption filings and related proceedings, Carl represented under oath that he was married to Jane, describing himself as the adoptee’s stepfather “having married her natural mother,” and listing his marital status as “married.”
- An amended decree of adoption was entered in 1998 reflecting the adoption and relying on Carl’s asserted marital status.
- The parties separated in April 2002.
- Shortly after separation, Carl filed an action seeking an annulment, contending the marriage was invalid because the ceremony was not properly solemnized under North Carolina law.
- Jane denied Carl was entitled to an annulment and asserted defenses including judicial estoppel (as well as collateral estoppel and res judicata).
- After hearing evidence, the trial court concluded the ceremony was not properly solemnized because Littlejohn was not qualified to perform marriages under the governing statutes, but the court denied annulment on the ground that Carl was judicially estopped from denying the marriage’s validity due to his sworn statements in the adoption case.
- Carl appealed the denial of annulment, and Jane cross-appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the parties’ 1991 ceremony, performed by Hawk Littlejohn in the Cherokee tradition, satisfied North Carolina’s statutory requirements for marriage solemnization.
2. Even if the ceremony did not satisfy the statutory solemnization requirements, whether Carl was judicially estopped from seeking an annulment after previously swearing in a separate judicial proceeding that he was married to Jane and obtaining a judicial benefit based on that position.
3. Whether any arguments raised on Jane’s cross-appeal required relief where the trial court’s result could be affirmed on judicial-estoppel grounds.

## Decision

- The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the order denying Carl’s request for an annulment.
- Assuming (as the trial court found) that the ceremony was not properly solemnized because the officiant was not authorized under North Carolina law, the court held Carl was barred by judicial estoppel from taking an inconsistent position in the annulment action.
- The court relied on Carl’s prior sworn representations in the adult-adoption proceeding that he was married to Jane, representations that were accepted by the court in entering the adoption decree.
- Because judicial estoppel resolved the case, the court did not need to grant relief based on other theories advanced by the parties and left the denial of annulment intact.

## Legal Principles

- North Carolina law conditions a valid marriage on compliance with statutory requirements, including a license and solemnization by a person authorized by statute to perform marriage ceremonies.
- Judicial estoppel prevents a party from asserting a position in a legal proceeding that is inconsistent with a position the party successfully asserted in an earlier judicial proceeding.
- A key consideration for judicial estoppel is whether the earlier position was accepted by the court and resulted in some form of judicial relief or advantage to the party who took that position.
- Judicial estoppel is aimed at protecting the integrity of the courts by preventing litigants from “playing fast and loose” with sworn positions across separate proceedings.
- When judicial estoppel applies, a court may deny relief even where the party’s later claim might otherwise be available under substantive law (such as an annulment theory based on a defect in solemnization).

## Conclusion

In *Pickard v. Pickard*, the Court of Appeals affirmed denial of an annulment where the husband had previously sworn in an adult-adoption proceeding that he was married and obtained an adoption decree reflecting that status; even assuming the marriage ceremony did not meet statutory solemnization requirements, judicial estoppel barred him from later disavowing the marriage to seek annulment.


Pickard v. Pickard, 625 S.E.2d 869 (2006)