Bordone, R. v. Bordone, V.

2025 Pa. Super. 205

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: September 16, 2025
• Docket: 3155 EDA 2024
• Status: Published

Opinion

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.

CONCURRING OPINION BY BECK, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 16, 2025

I join the decision of the learned Majority in full. I write separately to

address Husband’s claim that, pursuant to Pennsylvania law, “the law of the

state in which the marriage is celebrated[] governs the validity of the marriage

in regard to the capacity of the parties to enter into the contract of marriage.”

Husband’s Brief at 10 (citing Commonwealth v. Custer, 21 A.2d 524 (Pa.

Super. 1941) (en banc)). Although Husband is correct that the Custer Court

espoused “[t]he general rule … that a marriage valid where contracted is valid

everywhere,” the Court also recognized that this rule is not without

exceptions. See Custer, 21 A.2d at 526. One such exception noted in Custer

is “marriages repugnant to the public policy of the domicile of the parties,” J-A18002-25

including “polygamy.”1 Id. The Court continued, observing that “[s]ince the

recognition of foreign marriages rests on comity only, the surrounding

circumstances may and should be freely inquired into in deciding whether to

accord validity to them.” Id. (citation omitted).

Another en banc panel of this Court subsequently applied Pennsylvania

law to hold a marriage valid that would have otherwise been nullified under

the laws of the state where the marriage occurred. See Commonwealth ex.

rel. Wenz v. Wenz, 171 A.2d 529 (Pa. Super. 1961) (en banc). In Wenz,

this Court considered the validity of a divorce decree entered in the State of

Ohio, following which the appellant entered into a second marriage in the

State of Maryland and resided with his second spouse in Pennsylvania. Id. at

530. Of particular relevance to the present matter, the Wenz Court

recognized, that an invalidation of the Ohio divorce decree would be an

“impediment” to the marriage under Maryland law. Id. at 532. Though it

agreed with the conclusion of the trial court that there was insufficient credible

evidence presented to find the Ohio divorce decree was invalid, it further held

that even if it was invalid, the marriage should be sustained under

____________________________________________

1 Bigamy is one form of polygamy. See Black's Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024) (defining “polygamy” as “[t]he fact, condition, or practice of having more than one spouse simultaneously”); see also Majority Op. at 7 n.4 (defining “bigamy” as, inter alia, “[t]he act of marrying one person while legally married to another”).

-2- J-A18002-25

Pennsylvania law, applying the very provision that the Majority applies in the

case at bar. Id.; see also Majority Op. at 11 (citing 23 Pa.C.S.§ 1702(a)).

Husband’s contention that Connecticut law should apply because the

marriage occurred there is meritless. Examining the “surrounding

circumstances” of the parties’ marriage, Custer, 21 A.2d at 526, there is no

question that Pennsylvania has a far greater interest than Connecticut in

determining the validity of the marriage between Husband and Wife. As the

Majority recognizes, the parties were in Connecticut solely to exchange their

marriage vows; they spent the next twenty years residing and living their lives

elsewhere—most recently, and for the past several years, in Pennsylvania. As

such, I fully agree with the Majority that section 1702(a) of the Pennsylvania

Divorce Code applies to validate their marriage and, on that basis, the

marriage was not subject to annulment.

-3-