Also known as:sham marriages · fictitious marriage
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A marriage entered into solely for a collateral purpose such as immigration benefits rather than to assume the usual marital obligations. Some courts treat the marriage as valid if the parties were competent and satisfied all procedural requirements while declaring any contrary collateral agreement unenforceable as against public policy. Other courts hold the marriage invalid unless the parties intended to assume the usual obligations and status of marriage.
See Our Sources
How its tested
Common Examples
2
Collateral Agreement in Immigration Marriage
Sasha Stone and Simon Stern obtained a marriage license and participated in a civil ceremony to allow Simon to remain in the country for work. They signed a written agreement stating that Simon would pay Sasha a monthly fee, they would never present as spouses socially, and neither would owe the other any duty of care or support. After Simon's work permit was secured he stopped payments and sought a declaration that the marriage was invalid. A court following the traditional approach would uphold the marriage because formal requirements were met while declaring the side agreement unenforceable on public policy grounds.
Benefits Claim After Limited-Purpose Marriage
Sophia Singh married Sofia Stern shortly before Sofia's death to qualify for social security survivor benefits. The couple never cohabited or shared finances and entered the marriage only to obtain the benefits. When Sophia applied for benefits the agency denied the claim under the duration-of-relationship rule designed to block windfalls from sham marriages. The Supreme Court upheld the rule as a substantive eligibility requirement rather than an irrebuttable presumption.
Put it into practice
Test Yourself
9
Practice Questions5
· 1 primary source
Common Law
Weinberger v. Salfi422 U.S. 749, 777–782 (1975)
In May 1972, Grace Salfi married Londo L. Salfi, a fully insured wage earner under the Social Security Act.
Despite his apparent good health at the time of the marriage, he suffered a heart attack less than a month later and died on November 21, 1972. Appellee Salfi filed applications for mother's insurance benefits for herself and child's insurance benefits for her daughter Doreen Kalnins by a previous marriage.
These applications were denied by the Social Security Administration, both initially and on reconsideration, solely on the basis of the duration-of-relationship requirements. The named appellees then filed this action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
They principally relied on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 for jurisdiction and sought to represent the class of all widows and stepchildren denied benefits because the wage earner died within nine months of the marriage. The complaint alleged at least partial exhaustion of remedies with regard to their personal claims but made no similar allegations with regard to other class members.
They sought declaratory relief against the challenged statute and injunctive relief restraining the Secretary from denying benefits on that basis. A three-judge District Court heard the case on cross-motions for summary judgment.
The court granted substantially all of the relief prayed for by appellees, including a declaratory judgment that the statute was unconstitutional, certification of the class, an injunction against denying benefits, and an order to provide benefits from the time of original entitlement. The Secretary appealed from that judgment, and the Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction.
How do courts differ in treating the validity of a sham marriage?
Some courts uphold the marriage if the parties were competent and satisfied all procedural requirements while treating any collateral agreement disclaiming marital obligations as unenforceable on public policy grounds. Other courts invalidate the marriage unless the parties intended to assume the usual obligations and status of marriage. The traditional approach emphasizes formal compliance to promote certainty in marital status.
Supporting sources
What happens to a collateral agreement that disclaims marital duties in a sham marriage?
The agreement is treated as void as against public policy because it negates core marital obligations such as support and cohabitation. The marriage itself may still be recognized under the traditional approach even though the side agreement is unenforceable. This distinction preserves the formal status while refusing to enforce private terms that contradict the institution of marriage.
Supporting sources
Does a limited purpose such as immigration automatically invalidate a marriage?
No. Jurisdictions are split and many follow the traditional rule that formal compliance with licensing and ceremony requirements creates a valid marriage regardless of subjective motive. The limited purpose alone does not void the marriage under that approach although any contrary side agreement remains unenforceable.
Supporting sources
Family LawParent, child, and state · Intra-family immunitiesUBEFoundational