Can an annulled marriage establish cohabitant status under Utah's protective order law? Corwell v. Corwell Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed a narrow but important question in Corwell v. Corwell: whether an annulled marriage can establish cohabitant status under Utah’s Cohabitant Abuse Act for purposes of seeking a protective order.

Background and Facts

Rocky Corwell and Stacey Hall married in Nevada in March 2005 but never lived together. By March 2006, Corwell sought to annul the marriage. The parties executed a stipulation acknowledging they had never resided together, and the district court entered a decree of annulment declaring the marriage “void ab initio” on March 29, 2006. After learning of the annulment, Hall allegedly resumed harassing phone calls to Corwell. When Corwell threatened Hall, she petitioned for a protective order under the Cohabitant Abuse Act, claiming they were still married or former spouses.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether an annulled marriage can satisfy the “is or was a spouse” requirement under Utah Code section 30-6-1(2)(a) for establishing cohabitant status under the Act. Corwell argued the annulment precluded any finding of former spouse status, while Hall contended the Act should be interpreted broadly to protect victims of intimate partner violence.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court reversed the trial court’s denial of Corwell’s objection. The court emphasized that unlike other provisions of the Act requiring factual determinations, marital status presents a legal question. Since annulment renders a marriage “void from its inception,” the parties were never legally married. The court noted that the legislature has demonstrated awareness of annulment in other statutes and could have expressly included annulled marriages if intended. The court declined to expand the Act’s reach beyond its plain language, even for policy reasons.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that annulled marriages alone cannot establish cohabitant status under the Cohabitant Abuse Act. However, practitioners should note that most annulled marriage cases will still qualify under other provisions, such as living together, residing together, or having children in common. The decision also demonstrates the court’s commitment to statutory interpretation over expansive policy arguments in domestic violence contexts.