J-A18002-25
2025 PA Super 205
RONALD BORDONE : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : : v. : : : VIRGINIA BORDONE : No. 3155 EDA 2024
Appeal from the Order Entered October 28, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Civil Division at No(s): 2021-60355
BEFORE: OLSON, J., DUBOW, J., and BECK, J.
OPINION BY OLSON, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 16, 2025
Appellant, Ronald Bordone, (“Husband”) appeals from the October 28,
2024 order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County that
dismissed his complaint requesting a declaration of annulment of his marriage
to Virginia Bordone (“Wife”).1 We affirm.
The trial court summarized the factual history as follows:
____________________________________________
1 An annulment proceeding, as distinguished from a divorce proceeding, is merely declarative of an existing status[. I]t does not create a new relationship or sever a prior one. An annulment proceeding provides a method by which a judicial record may be obtained, formally declaring void, marriages which by the law are void and recited by the act itself to be void. It is a means furnished by the legislature for rendering facts and their effect judicially certain.
Faivre v. Faivre, 128 A.2d 139, 142 (Pa. Super. 1956) (citations, ellipsis, and original quotation marks omitted). J-A18002-25
Wife married her first husband[] in Pennsylvania in 1988[,] and they separated in 1994. Husband and Wife began their relationship in December [] 1994, at which point Husband was aware that Wife was still legally married to [her first husband]. Husband and Wife began cohabitating in Philadelphia[, Pennsylvania,] in [spring] 1995.
[Wife’s first husband] served Wife with divorce papers in 2000, and their Cameron County, Pennsylvania divorce case proceeded entirely by mail. According to the parties, Husband “paid for” Wife’s divorce from [her first husband].
[Husband and Wife] were married on Monday, August 10, 2000, in Stonington, New London County, Connecticut. At the time, both parties believed that Wife was divorced from [her first husband]. Both Husband and Wife believed they were entering a valid marriage on August 10, 2000.
The parties lived together in New Jersey at the time of the marriage, and they lived in both New Jersey and Pennsylvania in 2016[,] due to Husband’s relocation for work. In July 2017, the parties moved into the marital residence in Pennsylvania, where they lived together until January 2021.
Following their [August 2000] wedding, the parties lived together for more than twenty [] years as a married couple, they held themselves out to the public as being married, and they had four [] children together. The parties celebrated their wedding anniversary every year until 2020. The couple renewed their [wedding] vows in 2010 in New Jersey, at a “surprise ceremony” attended by Husband’s family and the parties’ children.
It was not until 2021[,] that either party learned that the Cameron County Court of Common Pleas had not formally entered the divorce decree for Wife’s marriage to [her first husband] until Tuesday, August 11, 2000, which was one [] day after the parties’ August 10, 2000[] wedding ceremony.
Husband testified that he was unaware of the one [] day overlap between the parties’ marriage and Wife’s divorce decree from [her
-2- J-A18002-25
first husband] until Husband filed his initial answer and counterclaim [to Wife’s divorce complaint] on March 16, 2021.[2]
Wife testified that she first learned of the one [] day issue from her attorney upon Husband’s filing of his amended answer and counterclaim[ on] May 21, 2021.
According to Husband, Wife’s earlier divorce decree was stored in a safe deposit box in the possession of Husband’s father[.] Husband testified that the parties only accessed the divorce decree once [] when Wife applied for a passport in 2018[,] but that he did not notice the [August 11, 2000] date on the [divorce] decree at that time.
Trial Court Opinion, 1/24/25, at 2-4 (record citations, footnote, and
extraneous capitalization omitted).
On October 17, 2022, Husband filed a complaint in annulment, asserting
that, because Wife was still married at the time of Husband and Wife’s wedding
ceremony on August 10, 2000, his marriage to Wife was void under
Connecticut law. Complaint in Annulment, 10/17/22, at ¶16. On November
7, 2022, Wife filed preliminary objections to Husband’s complaint, asserting,
inter alia, that “Connecticut law should not be applied to validate or invalidate
the marriage, because Connecticut has no interest in the parties’ instant
divorce [or] annulment matter.” Preliminary Objections, 11/7/22, at ¶16.
Husband filed an answer to Wife’s preliminary objections on November 29,
2 “Wife [] filed a divorce complaint in Bucks County[, Pennsylvania,] on March
5, 2021. Husband filed an answer and counterclaim on March 16, 2021, followed by an amended answer and counterclaim on May 21, 2021.” Trial Court Opinion, 1/24/25, at 5 (record citations and extraneous capitalization omitted).
-3- J-A18002-25
2022. On May 17, 2023, the trial court overruled Wife’s preliminary
objections. Trial Court Order, 5/17/23.
On June 6, 2023, Wife filed an answer and counterclaim to Husband’s
complaint. In her counterclaim, Wife requested, inter alia, equitable
distribution of the marital property and alimony. Answer and Counterclaim,
6/6/23, at ¶¶5-10. Husband filed an answer to Wife’s counterclaims on June
26, 2023.
On September 15, 2023, the trial court, upon Husband’s request,
appointed a master to conduct a hearing to resolve claims asserted by
Husband in his complaint seeking a declaration of annulment. Trial Court
Order, 9/15/23. On November 6, 2023, the master filed a report with the trial
court recommending that Husband’s request for a declaration of annulment
be denied. Report of the Family Master, 11/6/23, at 9. The master found
“that it would be inequitable and against public policy and policy of law to
regard this marriage that was believed to be legal and entered into in good
faith by both parties, when those parties continued to reside together as
spouses for over two decades, as void.” Id.
On December 19, 2023, Husband filed exceptions to the master’s
recommendations. On January 18, 2024, the trial court entered an order
memorializing the agreement reached by the parties that the issue of
Husband’s exceptions to the master’s report would be decided based upon
legal arguments presented by the parties and that no further record would be
developed. Trial Court Order, 1/18/24. Thereafter, Husband filed a
-4- J-A18002-25
memorandum of law in support of his exceptions on March 4, 2024, and Wife
filed a memorandum of law in opposition to the exceptions that same day. On
October 28, 2024, the trial court overruled Husband’s exceptions to the
master’s report and dismissed the complaint for a declaration of annulment.
This appeal followed.3
Husband raises the following issues for our review:
1. Whether the trial court committed an error of law and abused its discretion in dismissing [Husband’s] complaint for [a declaration of] annulment in its legal conclusion[ and] application of Connecticut law and its policy?
2. Whether the trial court committed an error of law and abused its discretion in dismissing [Husband’s] complaint for [a declaration of] annulment in the legal conclusion[ and] application of [] Pennsylvania law?
3. Whether the trial court committed an error of law and abused its discretion in relying on equitable principles to uphold a marriage that was void under Connecticut law?
Husband’s Brief at 4.
Collectively, Husband’s issues challenge the trial court’s order that
dismissed his complaint, which asserted that his marriage to Wife was void
under Connecticut law and which, as a result, requested an annulment
declaring the marriage void ad initio. Our standard of review of an order
granting or denying a complaint requesting that a marriage be declared void
or voidable is
3 Both Husband and the trial court complied with Pennsylvania Rule of Appellant Procedure 1925.
-5- J-A18002-25
limited to determining whether the trial court clearly abused its discretion or committed an error of law. If the trial court’s determination is supported by the record, we may not substitute our own judgment for that of the trial court. The application of the law, however, is always subject to our plenary review.
Asumana v. Asumana, 318 A.3d 950, 953 (Pa. Super. 2024), quoting In re
Est. of Carter, 159 A.3d 970, 974 (Pa. Super. 2017).
At the outset, Husband’s issues raise a choice-of-law question. Husband
contends that the trial court erred in applying Pennsylvania law to validate his
August 10, 2000 marriage to Wife on the basis that the parties continued to
cohabitate as husband and wife after the impediment to their marriage, i.e.,
Wife’s still-existing marriage to her first husband, was removed. Husband’s
Brief at 13-17. Husband asserts that the trial court should have applied
Connecticut law, which, according to Husband, dictates that the void nature
of their marriage could not be cured by the subsequent resolution of the
impediment. Id. at 10-13.
When presented with an issue involving a choice-of-law question, we
are reminded that “[c]ourts conduct a choice-of-law analysis under the
choice-of-law rules of the forum state,” which in the case sub judice is
Pennsylvania. Melmark, Inc. v. Schutt by and through Schutt, 206 A.3d
1096, 1104 (Pa. 2019). “Pennsylvania courts first consider whether a ‘true
conflict’ exists between the two states. This is because in some instances the
purported conflict is ultimately revealed to be a ‘false conflict’ - meaning that
the laws of both states would produce the same result, or that one of the
-6- J-A18002-25
states has no meaningful policy-based interest in the issue raised.” Id.
(citations omitted).
Section 46b-40 of the Connecticut statute governing annulments states
that “[a]n annulment shall be granted if the marriage is void or voidable under
the laws of this state or of the state in which the marriage was performed.”
Conn.G.S.A. § 46b-40(b). While we can find no statute in Connecticut that
expressly declares a marriage to be void by reason of bigamy, 4 Connecticut
caselaw has long held that a bigamous marriage is prohibited by law and is
void. Mazzei v. Cantales, 112 A.2d 205, 208 (Conn. 1955); see also
Perlstein v. Perlstein, 217 A.2d 481, 483 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1966); Parker
v. Parker, 270 A.2d 94, 95 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1970); Vasquez v.
Callardcastillo, 2025 WL 1693388, at *1 (Conn. Super. Ct. filed Jun. 9,
2025) (unpublished opinion). Under Connecticut law, the void nature of a
bigamous marriage cannot be cured by, inter alia, continued cohabitation,
once the impediment to the marriage, i.e., the first marriage, has been
removed. Parker, 270 A.2d at 95-96 (stating that, “under [Connecticut law,]
the cohabitation of the parties as spouses after the bar to the [one spouse’s]
remarriage had ceased does not validate their marriage”).
4 The term “bigamy” was long-ago defined as “the state of a man who has two
wives, or a woman who has two husbands[,] living at the same time.” Gise v. Commonwealth, 81 Pa 428, 429 (Pa. 1876); see also BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 199 (11th ed. 2019) (defining “bigamy” as “[t]he act of marrying one person while legally married to another”).
-7- J-A18002-25
Like Connecticut, Pennsylvania courts have long-held that a bigamous
marriage is void. Kenley v. Kenley, 2 Yeates 207, 1797 WL 717 (Pa. 1797);
see also Klaas v. Klaas, 14 Pa.Super. 550, 553 (Pa. Super. 1900); In re
Watt’s Est., 185 A.2d 781, 785 (Pa. 1962); Campbell v. Tang, 298 A.3d
1164, 1169 (Pa. Super. 2023). Section 3303 of the Pennsylvania Divorce
Code states that “[i]n all cases where a supposed or alleged marriage has
been contracted which is void or voidable under this title or under applicable
law, either party to the supposed or alleged marriage may bring an action in
annulment to have it declared void[.]” 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3303(a). Unlike
Connecticut statutory law, however, Pennsylvania statutory law provides a
cure to an otherwise void marriage by reason of bigamy. Section 1702(a) of
the Pennsylvania Marriage Law provides that
If a married person, during the lifetime of the other person with whom the marriage is in force, enters into a subsequent marriage pursuant to the requirements of this part and the parties to the marriage live together thereafter as husband and wife, and the subsequent marriage was entered into by one or both of the parties in good faith in the full belief that the former spouse was dead or that the former marriage has been annulled or terminated by a divorce, or without knowledge of the former marriage, they shall, after the impediment to their marriage has been removed by the death of the other party to the former marriage or by annulment or divorce, if they continue to live together as husband and wife in good faith on the part of one of them, be held to have been legally married from and immediately after the date of death or the date of the decree of annulment or divorce.
23 Pa.C.S.A. § 1702(a). This curative provision based upon cohabitation after
the removal of the impediment finds further support in Section 3304(a) of the
Divorce Code. See Covington v. Covington, 617 A.2d 1318, 1319
-8- J-A18002-25
(Pa. Super. 1992) (stating, Section 3304(a) “simply assures that the putative
spouse statute, [S]ection 1702, is read into the annulment section of the
Divorce Code and is not nullified by it”). Section 3304(a)(1) states that
Where there has been no confirmation by cohabitation following the removal of an impediment, the supposed or alleged marriage of a person shall be deemed void in the following cases:
(1) Where either party at the time of such marriage had an existing spouse and the former marriage had not been annulled nor had there been a divorce except where that party had obtained a decree of presumed death of the former spouse.
23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3304(a)(1).
When examining the results of Connecticut and Pennsylvania statutory
laws regarding void marriages by reason of bigamy and annulments, we find
there to be a true conflict. Both Connecticut and Pennsylvania caselaw deem
a bigamous marriage to be void. Unlike Connecticut however, Pennsylvania
statutory law provides a cure to a void marriage by reason of bigamy if the
parties cohabitate after the removal of the impediment. In other words,
Pennsylvania allows for a valid marriage to exist once the impediment is
removed so long as the parties to the subsequent marriage cohabitate after
the removal of the impediment. Connecticut does not allow for such a result.
Having found a “true conflict” of law, we now turn to a determination of
“which state has a priority of interest in the application of its rule of law so as
to vindicate the policy interests underlying that law.” Melmark, 206 A.3d at
-9- J-A18002-25
1107 (citation and original quotation marks omitted). Stated differently, this
Court has previously held that
In those cases involving conflicts between application of Pennsylvania law and the law of another state of the United States - that is to say, in cases that do not have an international dimension - Pennsylvania courts
take a flexible approach which permits analysis of the policies and interests underlying the particular issue before the court. This approach gives the state having the most interest in the question paramount control over the legal issues arising from a particular factual context, thereby allowing the forum to apply the policy of the jurisdiction most intimately concerned with the outcome.
Sinha v. Sinha, 834 A.2d 600, 605 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation omitted),
appeal denied, 847 A.2d 1288 (Pa. 2004).
Upon review, we concur with the trial court’s determination, “that
Pennsylvania has a much more considerable interest than Connecticut on the
question of the [validity of the marriage].” Trial Court Opinion, 1/24/25, at
15-16. As the trial court found, and the record demonstrates, the only
connection the parties had to Connecticut was that their wedding ceremony
occurred in Connecticut. Id. at 15; see also N.T., 11/6/23, at 7, 12 (stating
that the wedding ceremony took place in Connecticut). At the time of their
marriage, Husband and Wife resided in New Jersey and travelled to
Connecticut for their marriage ceremony. N.T., 11/6/23, at 8, 12. Both
Husband and Wife currently reside in Pennsylvania, and they have resided in
- 10 - J-A18002-25
Pennsylvania since July 2017.5 Complaint in Annulment, 10/17/22, at ¶¶1, 2;
see also Answer and Counterclaim to Complaint in Annulment, 6/6/23, at
¶¶1, 2 (admitting as true the averments contained in paragraphs 1 and 2 of
the complaint); N.T., 11/6/23, at 6, 47. Therefore, we discern no error of law
or abuse of discretion in the trial court’s application of Pennsylvania law.
As discussed supra, Section 1702(a) of the Pennsylvania Divorce Code
provides a curative provision under which an otherwise void marriage by
reason of bigamy can be rehabilitated upon removal of the impediment if the
parties cohabitate as a married couple after the removal of the impediment.
23 Pa.C.S.A. § 1702(a). As this Court in Covington, supra, explained, “[t]he
single controlling factor pursuant to [S]ections 1702 and 3304(a) that needs
to be clear from the record, once a good faith ceremonial marriage is
established, is continued cohabitation in good faith after the removal of the
impediment of the prior marriage.” Covington, 617 A.2d at 1319-1320; see
also Est. of Sacchetti v. Sacchetti, 128 A.3d 273, 285 (Pa. Super. 2015)
(reiterating that, evidence of cohabitation must be established to rehabilitate
a marriage under Section 1702(a)), appeal denied, 145 A.3d 728 (Pa. 2016).
In dismissing Husband’s complaint for a declaration of annulment, the
trial court found that
5 Husband testified that he moved to Pennsylvania in July 2016. N.T., 11/6/23, at 6. Wife stated that she moved to Pennsylvania to be with Husband in July 2017. Id. at 47.
- 11 - J-A18002-25
the parties undoubtedly reside in Pennsylvania. Both Husband and Wife testified before the [master] that they believed Wife was divorced at the time of their marriage and that they were entering a valid marriage on August 10, 2000. Under Pennsylvania law, there is no dispute that the parties’ cohabitation and conduct as husband and wife in the decades after the issuance of [Wife’s] divorce decree [from her first husband] (one day after the parties’ wedding celebration), rehabilitated their marriage. This, paired with Pennsylvania’s strong presumption[] in favor of the validity of a second marriage where the parties entered into it innocently, support[s] upholding the validity of the parties’ marriage.
Trial Court Opinion, 1/24/25, at 17-18 (record citations omitted).
Upon review, we concur with, and the record supports, the trial court’s
order dismissing Husband’s complaint for a declaration of annulment. Neither
Husband nor Wife dispute that they were married in Connecticut on August
10, 2000. N.T., 11/6/23, at 7, 12; see also Complaint for Annulment,
10/17/22, at Exhibit A (demonstrating a valid marriage certificate issued by
Connecticut). It is well-established that, “[a] marriage which satisfies the
requirements of the state where the marriage was contracted will everywhere
be recognized as valid unless it violates the strong public policy of another
state[.]” In re Lenherr’s Est., 314 A.2d 255, 258 (Pa. 1974); see also
Neyman v. Buckley, 153 A.3d 1010, 1018 (Pa. Super. 2016). At the time
of their August 10, 2000 marriage, Husband and Wife believed that Wife was
divorced from her first husband. N.T., 11/6/23, at 19, 40-41. Therefore, a
“good faith ceremonial marriage” was established. See Covington, 617 A.2d
at 1320.
After their August 10, 2000 marriage, Husband and Wife lived together
as a married couple, first in New Jersey and then in Pennsylvania, and raised
- 12 - J-A18002-25
four biological children together. N.T., 11/6/23, at 8-10, 12, 47-48. In 2010
the couple renewed their wedding vows in a “surprise ceremony” hosted by
Husband’s family, and the couple celebrated their wedding anniversary every
year from 2001 to 2020. Id. at 43-45. Wife acknowledged that during their
marriage, Husband and Wife experienced periods of separation due to marital
discord. Id. at 34. Ultimately, however, the couple reconciled and resided
together in Pennsylvania from July 2017, until Husband moved out of the
marital residence on January 17, 2021. Id. at 46. Wife filed for divorce from
Husband in March 2021.
It was only during the pendency of Wife’s divorce action against
Husband that Husband and Wife learned that Wife’s divorce from her first
husband was not finalized until August 11, 2000, one day after their marriage
ceremony. Id. at 15, at 42-43. It was at this point, August 11, 2000, that
the impediment to Husband and Wife’s marriage was removed. After the
removal of the impediment, Husband and Wife lived together and raised a
family as a married couple. Therefore, pursuant to Section 1702(a), their
marriage was rehabilitated and their marriage became valid on August 11,
2000. See Covington, 617 A.2d at 1320 (stating that the couple were legally
married on the date the decree was entered divorcing the husband from his
previous wife). As such, we discern no error of law or abuse of discretion in
the trial court’s order dismissing Husband’s complaint for a declaration of
annulment.
Order affirmed.
- 13 - J-A18002-25
Judge Dubow joins this Opinion.
Judge Beck joins this Opinion and files a Concurring Opinion.
Date: 9/16/2025
- 14 -