(Sanitized) CONSEQUENCES AND PROBLEMS CONFRONTING .AGENCY EMPLOYEES

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP85-00375R000200140028-6
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 18
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 26, 2001
• Sequence Number: 28
• Publication Date: November 26, 1969
• Content Type: MF

OGC Has Reviewed
Approved For Refe 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00375R0001,40028-6
OGC 69-2213
26 November 1969
MEMORANDUM FOR: Director of Personnel
SUBJECT: Foreign Divorce Decrees: Consequences and
Problems Confronting Agency Employees
1. Your comments are solicited with regard to the questions,
suggested answers and proposals set forth herein.
2. A divorce decree issued by a foreign country is not entitled
to full faith and credit under the U. S. Constitution. Its validity must
stand on the international principle of comity between friendly nations.
Comity looks to the moral necessity to do justice, so that justice may
be done in return. Under this principle, the courts of a U. S. forum
will recognize the foreign decree if satisfied that the foreign court had
jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter, and provided further
that recognizing the decree, or the procuring of the same, does not
violate the forum's public policy. The "public policy" of a state is to
be found in the law of the state, whether found in its constitution, statutes
or judicial decisions.
3. The Mexican divorce, because it has been the subject of con-
siderable subsequent litigation, has made most lawyers cognizant of
the problems raised by foreign divorce decrees. For this reason and
because of past and current problems before this office involving Mexican
divorces, the following commentary treats with the consequences of such
divorces with specific reference to their applicability to employees of
this Agency.
4. The term "Mexican divorce, " is generally understood to include
a decree procured by any one of the following three methods:
Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00375R000200140028-6
 Approved For Rele a 2002/01/08: CIA-RDP85-00375R00M0140028-6
The first method hereinafter termed the "Bi-party
Divorce" is one in which the plaintiff personally appears in Mexico
and where the defendant appears either in person in Mexico or
through an attorney, duly appointed by the defendant to appear in
the action for him or her.
Next is the so-called "Mail Order Divorce" in which
either one or both parties appear in the action, but neither party
is physically present in Mexico at any time. The parties appear
through attorneys, whom they appoint by mail, and in due course
receive a decree from Mexico, also by mail.
The third method is the so-called "One-Party Divorce"
where the plaintiff appears personally in Mexico, institutes an action
for divorce and where the defendant does not appear in person or
through an attorney, but is given notice of the proceeding by personal
service or by publication in the United States.
5. It can be stated unequivocally that the "mail order divorce"
is not recognized by any American jurisdiction. The cases holding (((
such a divorce void from the beginning, not just voidable, are legion.
See Mexican Divorce - A Survey, 33 Fordham L. Rev. 449 (1965);
27B C.J.S. Divorce sec. 352. The overwhelming majority of states
having ruled on the validity of the "one-party divorce" have held the
decrees to be invalid. The rare exceptions are those cases where
there are extenuating circumstances--usually where the subsequent
"marriage" has been in existence and uncontested for many years and
there are children. Even these circumstances have not proved sufficient
to prevent some courts from invalidating the Mexican decree. Lastly,
even the "bi-party divorce" has been invalidated by some states having
ruled on them. In some cases one of the parties to the divorce has not
been estopped from subsequently contesting the decree. New York
appears to be the most notable exception, generally recognizing the
validity of the "bi-party" Mexican divorce. Rosenstiel v. Rosenstiel,
16 N. Y. 2d 64, 209 N. E. 2d 709, 262 N. Y. S. 2d 86 (1965), cert. denied,
384 U. S. 971 (1966). Subsequent to the Rosenstiel case, however, New
York enacted a statute liberalizing the grounds for obtaining a divorce
through the New York courts (N. Y. Domestic Relations Law Section 170,
effective September 1, 1967), placing a cloud upon the Rosenstiel decision.
Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00375R000200140028-6
 Approved For RelWe 2002/01/08: CIA-RDP85-00375ROOSM0140028-6
According to some legal writers it is impossible to foresee the
effect of the new divorce statute on future cases involving basically
the same facts as Rosenstiel. For citations and a thorough discussion
of the relevant cases supporting the statements of this paragraph, see
Mexicans For A Day: The Consequences Of A Mexican Divorce, Air
Force JAG Law Review, Vol. X, No. 4, page 23 (July-August 1968).
6. From the foregoing, it can readily be seen why subsequent
litigation contesting the Mexican divorce is not only possible but quite
probable. This litigation can arise not only during the lifetime of the
parties to the divorce, but particularly upon the death of either party
when determining the lawful heirs and legatees to the decedent's estate.
The following examples provide a sampling of the type of plaintiffs who
have in the past initiated such subsequent litigation and the nature of it:
The spouse who obtained the Mexican decree has in some courts been
successful in subsequently having the foreign decree declared void.
More often the defendant spouse in the divorce action is the plaintiff in
subsequent litigation to have it set aside, even in those cases where he
or she appeared and consented in the Mexican decree. This litigation
often takes the form of a new "divorce action" in the appropriate U. S.
forum and, in cases where the other spouse has remarried relying upon
the Mexican decree, the grounds for the new divorce action might be
"adultery." If the defendant spouse in the Mexican decree has not sub-
sequently obtained a valid U. S. divorce before the death of the other
party to the decree, he or she might contest the divorce in order to
share in the decedent's estate as the lawful spouse. Children of the
marriage dissolved by a Mexican decree have also contested the decree.
The plaintiff in one case sought to annul his marriage on the basis that
his spouse's previous marriage was still in effect as it was not dissolved
by the Mexican decree. In another case the plaintiff sought custody of
his children from his former spouse on the grounds that she had sub-
sequently married a man who had obtained a Mexican divorce to dissolve
his prior marriage, and therefore the former spouse was living in adultery
and an unfit mother. Last but not least, at the persuasion of a defendant
spouse in a Mexican divorce, there is the possibility, even though
improbable, of a state prosecuting as a bigamist the other spouse who
has married relying upon the Mexican decree.
Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00375R000200140028-6
 Approved For Re a 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00375R000000140028-6
7. In addition to the potential prosecution and litigation
problems already enumerated, the Agency employee who is a party
to a Mexican divorce and subsequently remarries is confronted with
serious problems affecting his or her entitlement to various govern-
ment benefits while living and also the distribution of benefits in the
event of his or her death.
8. The Comptroller General has repeatedly held that the federal
Government is not estopped from challenging the validity of a foreign
divorce decree when its interests might be adversely affected.
36 Comp. Gen 121 (1956); 44 Comp. Gen. 485 (1965); 45 Comp. Gen. 155
(1965). In an opinion rendered 16 June 1969, B-166987, the Comptroller
General stated:
Also, it is a well established rule of the accounting
officers of the Government that they will not allow a claim against
the United States if there is substantial basis for doubt that a
court of competent jurisction wouTcT`allow the claim. See
Longwill v. United States, 17 Ct. Cl. 788 (1881) and Charles v.
United States, 19 Ct. Cl. 316 (1884).
More specifically, the Comptroller General (B-164737, 1 August 1968)
has said:
Thus as a general rule, we have held that, where the
validity of a second marriage is dependent upon dissolution
of the first marriage by a divorce decree of a Mexican Court
and such divorce has not been recognized by a court of com-
petent jurisdiction in the United States, the marital status of
the parties is of too doubtful legality for us to approve increased
allowances on account of such marital relationship. Compare
45 Comp. Gen. 155 (1965) and 47 Comp. Gen. 286 (1967).
(Emphasis added.)
9. Therefore, in numerous decisions the Comptroller General
has consistently held that until a U. S. court determines the validity of
the particular Mexican divorce decree, a subsequent marriage is of too
doubtful legality to permit the Government to approve increased allowances
on account of such marital relationship. These cases have involved en-
Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00375R000200140028-6
 Approved For Relft6e 2002/01/08: CIA-RDP85-00375R008E00140028-6
titlement to increased rental and subsistence allowances, basic
allowances for quarters, and death gratuities for a surviving spouse.
While all these cases involve military personnel, there is ample
language to the effect that the holdings need not be restricted solely
to such personnel. More importantly, these decisions have been the
same whether the Mexican divorce was of the "mail order" (B-164737,
1 August 1968), "one-party" (45 Comp. Gen. 155 (1965)), or "bi-party"
(36 Comp. Gen. 121 (1956)) variety. Further, even in the case of a
!'bi-party" decree obtained by domiciliaries of New York, the Comptroller
General has said that after September 1, 1967, because of the uncertainty
of section 250 added to the Domestic Relations Law of New York, the
Rosenstiel case no longer will be viewed as constituting a judicial deter-
mination of the validity of a Mexican divorce. 47 Comp. Gen. 286 (1967).
10. As to the question of a U. S. court determining the validity
of the particular Mexican divorce, the Comptroller General has recog-
nized that a state court would not grant a declaratory judgment on the
validity of the divorce, and therefore has advised the interested parties
of their right to have their entitlement to increased allowances on account
of a lawful spouse litigated in the Court of Claims of the United States and
the United States District Courts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1346(2) and 1491.
36 Comp. Gen. 121 (1956), B-166987, 16 June 1969. - -
11. Inasmuch as the basis for granting differentials and allowances
to Agency employees is set forth in the Standardized Regulations
(Government Civilians, Foreign Areas) issued by the Department of State,
the undersigned discussed this problem with Edward J. Lyerly, Deputy
Legal Advisor for Administration at the State Department. Lyerly advised
that in the first instance, State makes a point of advising its personnel
against obtaining foreign divorce decrees because of all the problems
associated with them and therefore, the problem rarely comes up. He
was well aware of the Comptroller General Decisions noted above and
advised that were such a case to come before State's legal office for deter-
mination, those Decisions would be binding. However, Lyerly responded
in the negative to the undersigned's question of whether State's personnel
department or accounting officers are under directives to be on the lookout
for foreign divorce decrees in requests for increased allowances on account
of marital relationship, and where there is such an indication, to refer the
matter to legal counsel for determination. Lyerly admitted that there
probably are cases where the increased allowances are paid because
there is no awareness of or no attempt to determine the existence of a
Mexican divorce.
5
Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00375R000200140028-6
 STATINTL
Approved For Relew6e 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00375ROOQA00140028-6
12. A number of questions arise as a consequence of the fore-
going. Perhaps the Agency should take an affirmative step and advise
its employees in a headquarters and field notice of the probable serious
consequences of obtaining a foreign divorce decree and further advise
against such action, thereby establishing Agency policy on the matter.
After all, an existing legitimate concern of the Agency, because of
security implications, is the avoidance by its employees of unnecessary
litigation. Should the Agency require what the State Department
apparently does not--that the Office of Personnel look for and be aware
of foreign divorce decrees and when found, report the same to OGC for
further determination? Perhaps the Agency, because of the very fact
of the added security problem, should require this type of scrutiny. In
any event, in those cases where the foreign decree is a known fact and
the matter presented to this office for determination, the Comptroller
General Decisions cited above are binding. On the other hand, are there
overriding security factors which would permit us in certain situations to
vary from those Decisions? For example, as indicated above, where the
Mexican divorce has not been contested by the parties having standing to
do so and the employee cannot obtain a declaratory judgment from a state
court, the only recourse left to the employee is to seek relief in the U. S.
Court of Claims or U. S. District Court. Assuming the employee is
13. The next problem area involves the distribution of death
benefits of a deceased employee who remarried after a Mexican divorce.
The Comptroller General in B-166987, 16 June 1969 disallowed a claim
for six months' death gratuity as surviving spouse of decedent. The
decedent's previous marriage had been dissolved by a Mexican divorce
granted to his former wife. As in the cases previously cited, the
Comptroller General said:
Eligibility of survivors to receive the six months'
death gratuity is governed by 10 U. S. C. 1447. That section
Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00375R000200140028-6
 Approved For Relee 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00375R00GW0140028-6
(so far as applicable here) provides that such gratuity
shall be paid to or for the living survivor highest on the
following list: (1) surviving spouse; (2) children (including
stepchildren who were part of the decedent's household at
the time of his death), in equal shares; and (3) certain per-
sons (including his parents) if designated by-him.
Since you claim the gratuity as surviving spouse it
must be established that a valid marriage existed between
you and the decedent. It has long been held that where the
validity of a second marriage is dependent upon the dissolu-
tion of the first marriage by a divorce decree of a Mexican
court which has not been recognized by a court of competent
jurisdiction in the United States, the validity of the marital
status of the parties is too doubtful to justify approval by this
Office of payment of an allowance such as here involved.
It is important to note, that the decision does not discuss the type of
Mexican divorce obtained. Apparently, as in the other cases, the
"type" decree was not a relevant factor in the decision.
14. From the foregoing it can be seen that subsequent litigation
is probable. The question raised is who is the lawful "widow" or "sur-
viving spouse" entitled to decedent-employees death benefits? The
following are instances in which this question is likely to arise.
15. Bureau of Employees' Compensation death benefits are
payable first to "the widow who was living with or dependent for support
upon the deceased employee at the time of his death," or "the widower
who was dependent upon the deceased employee at the time of her death."
While the language would seem to preclude the former spouse who was a
party to the Mexican divorce unless there was continued support of said
former spouse by the decedent, there is also doubt whether the current
spouse is the lawful widow or widower. The claim for BEC compensation
on account of death inquires not only as to the decedent's prior marriages,
but when and how they were terminated. It would appear, therefore, that
the claim itself would flag the fact of a Mexican divorce.
Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00375R000200140028-6
 Approved For Relmse 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00375ROO 00140028-6
16. Under Social Security even a divorced wife can get widow's
benefits under certain specified conditions and restrictions. If the
legality of the divorce is disputed, a wife may be able to collect benefits
without the specified conditions or restrictions if the courts of the state
in which her husband lived would hold that the couple were still validly
married. For example, a state may not recognize the validity of certain
divorces obtained in Mexico. The wife whose husband lived in that state
may collect benefits on her husband's record. Taken from J. K. Lasser
Tax Institute, Your Social Security and Medicare Guide, Simon and
Schuster, New York, 1968, p. 56.
17. An employee may designate any beneficiary he desires with
regard to "unpaid compensation of a deceased civilian employee" and
also insurance benefits under FEGLI, UBLIC and WAEPA. However,
if there is no such designation, then as to the "unpaid compensation"
the "surviving spouse" takes the benefits. In the case of FEGLI, the
"widow or widower of the insured" takes the insurance benefits. The
FEGLI claim elicits information concerning prior marriages of the
decedent and how and when such marriages were terminated. In the
case of UBLIC and WAEPA, the estate of the decedent receives the
insurance benefits if there is no designated beneficiary. The estate of
a decedent is distributed either by the will of decedent or if there is no
will, pursuant to state statutory precedence which generally begins with
the "surviving spouse" of decedent.
18. The application for death benefits under the Civil Service
Retirement System elicits information concerning the decedentrs prior
marriages and how and when said marriages were terminated. Once
again the question arises as to who is the lawful "widow" or "widower"
for a survivor annuity? The same question arises under the CIA Retire-
ment Act.
19. It would appear that the Comptroller General Decision noted
above with respect to death benefits is binding upon the Agency in those
cases where it administers or assists in administering the benefits. In
the case of death benefits which can be substantial and unlike those cases
involving increased allowances, it is more likely that there will be a dual
claim for the decedent-employees' death benefits--that of the current
spouse and that of the former spouse involved in the Mexican divorce.
Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00375R000200140028-6
 Approved For Rele 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00375R0000140028-6
20. An additional problem area arises when the employee,
after obtaining a Mexican divorce, marries a foreign national. The
first problem involves "immigration benefits" available to the foreign
national spouse. The following is taken from Gordon and Rosenfield,
Immigration Law and Procedure, Vol. I, Sec. 2. 18 (1967):
. . . In order to obtain exempt status, or to obtain
other immigration benefits available to a 'spouse,' there must,
of course, be a valid and subsisting marriage between the
parties.
. . . Another factor which may impair the legality of
a marriage is the existence of legal impediments.... The
situation is complicated, of course, when one of the parties
has obtained a divorce of questionable soundness, such as a
Mexican mail order divorce prior to his remarriage. The
essential inquiry is whether the second marriage was regarded
as lawful at the place of its celebration. If the answer is
affirmative the marriage will be recognized for immigration
purposes. The immigration authorities ordinarily will not
question the validity of a divorce, whether granted in the United
States or in a foreign country, where one of the parties was
physically present within the court's jurisdiction. (Emphasis
added. )
The marriage of an employee to a foreign national contracted in a foreign
country is registered with the Consulate General at the U. S. Embassy.
Lyerly, in the forementioned discussion with the undersigned, advised
that this registration is for immigration purposes to assist in procuri g
the necessary documentation, and in no way purports to validate the
Mexican divorce or subsequent marriage for any other purpose.
21. Only an alien who has been lawfully admitted to this country
for permanent residence can be naturalized. Under the Immigration and
Nationality Act of 1952, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1427), the alien- spouse
could be naturalized five years after being admitted for permanent
residence--i. e., five years of continuous residence (domicile) in the
Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00375R000200140028-6
 Approved For Relewte 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00375R00QZ00140028-6
United States, at least one-half of that time being physically present
within the United States. The requirement of "good moral character"
would probably not be a bar if the Mexican divorce were considered.
It was found in one naturalization case that when an alien making a
bona fide attempt to conduct himself within the law procured a Mexican
divorce without appearing personally and then entered into a marriage
in New Jersey, a denial of naturalization on the ground that the alien
was not of "good moral character" would not be justified. Petition of
Smith, 71 F. Supp. 968 (D. N.J. 1947); see Dickoff v. Shaughnessy,
142 F. Supp. 535 (D. N. Y. 1956). Contra, Petition of DaSilva,
140 F. Supp. 596 (D. N. J. 1956).
22. A person who is married to a citizen of the United States
may become naturalized in the same way as any other alien as suggested
above under section 1427, or he or she may take advantage of special
naturalization exemptions that are granted to the spouse of a citizen of
the United States. These exemptions fall into two classes--under section
1430(a) the alien-spouse can be naturalized three years after the marriage,
having -resided in the United States for one-half of that time, or under
section 1430(b) the alien-spouse can be naturalized soon after the marriage
upon declaration in good faith that he or she intends to reside abroad with
the citizen-spouse, and then reside in the United States when the citizen-
spouse returns. From past experience this office knows that the Natural-
ization Service will not, at least in the case involving a "mail order"
Mexican divorce, permit naturalization of the alien-spouse under either
of the above two special naturalization exemptions. Naturalization,
therefore, can take place only after five years of continuous residence in
the United States prior to application. Thus, when the citizen-employee
spouse is subject to assignment abroad, an undesirable situation arises.
23. Pursuant to Agency regulations an employee, prior to STATINTL
marrying a foreign national, must receive the approval of the Director
for retention of his employment status. The procedure
requires the employee to submit his resignation concurrent with the
request for retention of employment status. As a result of a current
case involving approval of retention of employment status following
marriage to a foreign national, it is proposed that the following require-
ment be exacted in future cases seeking such approval: If the employee
has previously been married, the Office of Personnel should ascertain
how, where and when the prior marriage was dissolved. If dissolved by
a foreign divorce decree, the case should be referred to the Office of
General Counsel for an advisory opinion based upon the facts of the
particular case. The purpose of this opinion will be to point out problems
Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA1IgDP85-00375R000200140028-6
 Approved For Relewte 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00375R00Q00140028-6
created by the particular foreign divorce decree and will constitute
additional information which the approving authority can take into
consideration in determining whether to approve retention of employ-
ment status or accept the employee's resignation.
24. While an employee need not seek approval to retain employ-
ment prior to marrying a U. S. citizen, Agency regulations require that
the employee subsequently submit information concerning the new spouse,
which is reviewed for security purposes. HR~ It is suggested
that the same procedure as outlined in paragraph 23 -above be followed in
these cases.
STATINTL
25. There are probably other problems created by the Mexican
divorce that have not been raised here. One that comes to mind is the
tax treatment accorded the divorced parties--both income and federal
estate tax treatment. Sufficient existing and potential pitfalls have been
raised, however, to make the point.
26. In summation, the foreign divorce decree, in particular the
Mexican divorce, is fraught with a host of unfavorable consequences which
continue even after the death of the party or parties to the divorce. In
the first instance, there is the prospect of outside litigation or prosecution
for reasons totally unrelated to any benefits derived from Government
employment. In the second instance, the Agency employee who remarries
is confronted with the loss of increased allowances on account of such
marital relationship. With regard to this particular problem the under-
signed has, in paragraph 12, raised certain questions and suggested some
answers. In the third instance, there is raised the problem of who is
entitled to the employee-decedent's death benefits as surviving spouse.
Due to the substantial nature of death benefits and the ever present
possibility of dual claims to those benefits, it is suggested that the
Comptroller General Decision cited in paragraph 13 is binding upon the
Agency in those cases where it administers or assists in administering the
benefits. Therefore, in any case where the employee-decedent was a party
to a Mexican divorce, it is suggested that the assistance and guidance of
this office be sought prior to the submission of any claim for, or the actual
payment of any death benefits. Finally, there are the problems associated
Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00375R000200140028-6
 Approved For Ruse 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00375ROQp 00140028-6
with the immigration and naturalization of an alien-spouse of an
employee who has received a foreign divorce decree to dissolve
a prior marriage. The undersigned has proposed a new procedure
to be applied in situations where an employee seeks prior approval
to retain employment status after marriage to a foreign national
and also when submitting information concerning marriage to a
U. S. citizen, as set forth in paragraphs 22 and 23, respectively.
27. We remain at your disposal and offer our continued
assistance in this matter.
cc: EA/Ex. Dir. -Compt.
DDS
D/Fin
C/Audit Staff
DD/Pers-SP
STATINTL
Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00375R000200140028-6
 Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00375R000200140028-6
SENDER WILL CHECK CLASC ^ATION TOP AND BOTTOM
UNCLASSIFIED C NFIDENTIAL SECRET
OFFICIAL ROUTING SLIP
T
NAME AND ADDRESS
DATE
INITIALS
I
irector of Personne
X-2
2
3
4
5
6
ACTION
DIRECT REPLY
PREPARE REPLY
APPROVAL
DISPATCH
RECOMMENDATION
COMMENT
FILE
RETURN
R
CONCURRENCE
INFORMATION
SIGNATURE
Remarks :
FOLD HERE TO RETURN TO SENDER
FROM: NAME, ADDRESS AND PHONE NO.
DATE
OGC 7D07 Hq. _
2bNov69
UNCLASSIFIED CONFIDENTIAL
SECRET
r ea&eeNQ2/01/08: CIA-RDP85-0037
lp
sFloill
5R00020@aP4
0028-6
A
li
 Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00375R000200140028-6
Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00375R000200140028-6
 Approved For ReWse 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00375ROd'200140028-6
GOMPYROLLER GCNCRAL OF THC UNITED STATES
WA&HINGTON, D.C. 20548
B-166937
Mrs. Catherine I. Fountain
C/o Dougherty, Law and Phillips
Attorneys at Law
Rancho Silverado West
425 West Fourth Street
Tustin, California 92680
Dear Mrs. Fountain:
June 16, 1969
Reference is made to letter dated May 1, 1969s written in
your behalf by Mr. Gerald J. Phillips, attorney-at-law, concerning
a settlement of our Claims Division dated April 16, 1969, which
disallowed your claim for six months' death gratuity as surviving
spouse of Staff Sergeant Mack Donald Fountain, 1070295, U.S. Marine
Corps.
The record indicates that you were married to the decedent
at Las Vegas, Nevada, on November 1, 196#3. Your claim was disallowed
by settlement dated April 16, 1969, for the reason that the decedent
had entered into a prior marriage with Fthol Lois Fountain and she
,was granted a divorce from him on April 19, 1965, in Juarez,
Chihuahua, Mexico.
In the settlement it was explained that since as a general
rule, the State courts in the United States have not recognized the
validity of Mexican divorces, it is the general policy of our Office
in cases where a prior marriage of a member of the uniformed services
has boon the subject of a Mexican divorce, and he subsequently
remarries, to require a judicial determination of the validity of the
marriage before approving payment of military allowances or death
gratuity incident to such marriages.
In his letter Mr. Phillips says that you have consulted hire on
your claim for the gratuity and that you are under the impression
from our office letter of April 16, 1969, that a court in the State
of California will declare the Mexican divorce your late husband's
first wife obtained to be valid in the State of California. Mre
Phillips doubts this and it seems to be his view that your claim
%- - ..
should be nll--A
on the
Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00375R000200140028-6
 Approved For Rise 2002/01/08.: CIA-RDP85-00375R200140028-6
B-166937 .
hat
In this connection, Mr. Phillips says he has concluded t11
there is no court of competent jurisdiction in the State of Cali-
fornia nor within any other State, that will declare such a divorce
to be valid. Further, he requcsts that if we are familiar with
any case within the State of California where such a divorce has
been declared valid, he would appreciate.us sending him information
on the case.
Eligibility of survivors to receive the six months' death
gratuity is Governed by 10 U.S.C. 1177. That section '(so far as
applicable here) provides that such gratuity shall be paid to or
for the living survivor highest on the following list: (1) surviving
spouse; (2) children (including stepchildren who were part of the
decedent's household at the time of his death) in equal shares;
and (3) certain persons (including his parents) if designated by
him,
allow a claim against the United States if there is substantial basis
for doubt that a court of competent Jurisdiction would allow the
claim. See Lon,-;will v. United States, 17 Ct. Cl. 283 and Charles V.
United States, 19 Ct. Cl. 316.
"-,such as here involved. ", See our decision of August 16, 1956, B-1123267"
(36 Comp. Gen. 121), copy enclosed. Also, it is a well established
rule of the accounting officers of the Government that they will not
.Since you claim the gratuity as surviving spouse it must be
.established that a valid marria e existed between you and the
decedent. It has long been held that where the validity of a
accond marriage is dependent upon the dissolution of the first
marriage by a divorce decree of a Mexican court which has not been
recognized by a court of competent jurisdiction in the United
States, the validity of the marital status of the parties is too
.doubtful to justify approval_,by this Office of payment of an allowance
It was for these reasons that our Claims Division stated in
the settlement of April 16, 1969, that in cases where the prior
marriage of the husband or wife has been the subject of a Mexican
divorce our Office has required a judicial determination of the
validity of the marriage before authorizing payment of the six
months' death gratuity or other allowances incident to the marriage
relationship. See decision of November 22, 1967, B-160591 (.7 Comp.
Gen. 236), copy herewith.
ti
Approved Fehr ketease 2002/01/08: CIA-RDP85-00375R000200140028-6
 Approved For R?I se 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00375R*200140028-6
D-166937
The settl.caent was not intended to imply that an court of the
State of California would declare the Mexican divorce to be valid.
It is regretted that you so understood it. !a this regard see the
enclosed copies of-decisions of January 27, 19669 December 7, 1965,1
and September 239 19659 E-15643 and decision of March 49 19639
B-163335.
and 11791. .
Under our Office procedures, an attorney represeatin; a
claimant must submit a duly executed power of attorrioy or other
Approved Forele se 200$/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-003758000200140028-6
With respect to Mr. Phillip's request for information concerning
a case where a Mexican.divorce was declared valid by a court of
competent jurisdiction in California, we invite his attention to the
case of Corti. Paul Fraley and. Florence Ch,, berlin Fraley ~ Plaintiffs
v. Burma, Elizabeth TThorip on, fofendant, No. 303330 in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego. In
that case, on October 318 1967, Judge Syron F. Lindc1ey, presidinu
in Department 21, issued judgment establishing the validity of Mexican
divorce and of subsequent marria?Ue. There is also enclosed for his
information a copy of our letter of May Z,, 1966, B-156453, to the
Office of the Chief of Pinance, Dopartraeat of the Army, concerning
the judicial determination in.. Baltimore, Maryland, of the validity
of a Mexican divorce obtained by the first wife of an Army officer.
As stated above, the record before us shows that you married
the decedent on November 1, 1963, after a Mexican divorce was issued
on April 19, 1965, purporting to dissolve his prior marriag-e to
Ethel Lois Fountain, who has also remarried. In these circumstances
the accounting officers of the Goverrument may not authorize payment ,1
of the six months' gratuity to you as surviving spouse in the absence
of recognition by a court. of competent jurisdiction that the marriage
on November 1, 1963, between you and the decedent was valid.
In addition to the authority of this Office to settle claims
against the United States, your attention is invited to the juris-
diction of the Court of Claims of the United States and the United
States District Courts to consider and determine civil actions
arising out of claims against the United States. 23 U.S.C. 131+6(2)
 Approved For F ase 2002/01/08: CIA-RDP85-00375R' 200140028-6
13-166937
documentary evidence of his ri ht to act for the claimant.
Therefore, if you wish Mr. Phillips to represent you before our
Office, a power of attorney authorizing; him to do so should be
submitted,.
I Very truly yours,
For.the Comptroller General
of the?united States
1 rat . .
Approved For 14e1ease 2002401/08: CIA-RDP85-003758000200149028-6