Parker v. Sullivan
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
898 F.2d 578 (1990)
- Written by Jenny Perry, JD
Facts
George Parker obtained a divorce decree in an Indiana state court by submitting an affidavit in which he swore that his wife, Rithie Parker (plaintiff), had left the state and that her whereabouts were unknown. To the contrary, as George well knew, Rithie was living in the marital residence in Indiana. The only service of the divorce filing was by publication, which Rithie did not see, and the divorce was granted by default. When Rithie learned of the divorce, she sued to have it set aside as fraudulent, but George died 15 months later, in 1975, while the suit was pending, and the court dismissed the claim as moot. Rithie’s application for Social Security widow’s benefits was then denied because the Parkers were not married at George’s death. An administrative-law judge (ALJ) found that George procured the divorce by fraud but affirmed the denial on grounds that the divorce decree was not void, but merely voidable. Rithie sought review in federal district court, and in 1983, the court remanded the matter to the Social Security Administration (agency) for further consideration and suggested that Rithie try to reopen the divorce proceeding. Rithie did not follow that advice, and the agency again denied benefits. Rithie appealed again to the district court, which again affirmed the denial of benefits, and Rithie appealed to the circuit court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Posner, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 824,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.