Pickard v. Pickard
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
625 S.E.2d 869 (2006)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
Hawk Littlejohn, a Native American, performed the marriage of Carl Glenn Pickard (plaintiff) and Jane Edwards Pickard (defendant) in the tradition of Native Americans. Prior to doing so, Littlejohn obtained a certificate ordaining himself as a minister in the Universal Life Church. Additionally, Carl and Jane applied for and received a North Carolina marriage license. For approximately 11 years, Carl and Jane lived and held themselves out as husband and wife. During that time, Carl initiated proceedings to adopt Jane’s adult biological daughter. Throughout the adoption process and subsequent legal proceedings, Carl listed himself as married to Jane. Afterward, the Pickards’ relationship deteriorated, and Carl and Jane separated. Carl filed a petition for an annulment. After a hearing, Jane moved for a directed verdict. The trial court denied Jane’s motion and held that the marriage ceremony had not been properly solemnized, because Littlejohn was not qualified to perform the ceremony. However, the court held that Carl was judicially estopped from claiming that his 11-year marriage was voidable under state annulment law, because Carl had previously affirmed, under oath, that he was lawfully married to Jane. Carl appealed. Jane cross-appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hudson, J.)
Dissent (Tyson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.