Also known as:sham marriages · fictitious marriage
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see 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.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
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
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Common Law
Course Outlines
Study Supplements
Dictionaries
Weinberger v. Salfi422 U.S. 749, 777–782 (1975)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
3
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