20 CFR 404.1101
On the claimant's application for wife's insurance benefits, she indicated that in 1958 she married the worker, who was her natural mother's brother by blood, in the State of Nevada and that both were domiciliaries of Indiana at the time of marriage and immediately thereafter they returned to Indiana.
Section 216(h)(1)(A) of the Act provides, as pertinent here, that an applicant is the wife of an insured worker if the courts of the State in which he was domiciled at the time she filed her application, would find that she and the worker were validly married at such time. Thus, under the circumstances of this case, her status as wife of the worker for purposes of wife's benefits depends upon whether the marriage was valid in Nevada and if so whether the courts of Indiana, the domicile of the parties, would recognize the marriage as valid.
Under section 216(h)(1)(B) of the Act, a woman who does not meet the requirements of section 216(h)(1)(A), supra, amy nevertheless be deemed to have been validly married to the worker for purposes of entitlement to benefits under certain conditions, not here applicable. For a discussion of those requirements, see SSR 63-20, C.B. 1963, p.19.
Section 122.020, Nevada Revised Statutes, provides, in pertinent part:
Section 125.290, Nevada Revised Statues, provides:
Thus, the marriage of the claimant and the worker was void under Nevada law, since an uncle and niece who are blood relations are nearer of kin than second cousins or cousins of the half blood.
It would appear that under the law of Indiana, this marriage, since void under Nevada law, would not be recognized by Indiana's courts. Bolkovac v. State, 98 N.E.2d 250 (Ind., 1951).
Accordingly, the claimant does not have the status of wife of the worker within the meaning of section 216(h)(1)(A) of the Act.
Back to Table of Contents