Duo didn't wed, but they did divorce

SALT LAKE CITY — A Utah Supreme Court ruling issued Friday could open a door to recognition of gay marriage, polygamy and underage marriage in Utah, an attorney says.

Denver Snuffer believes the ruling about a divorce decree will have wide-ranging and unintended implications for the concept of marriage. But his opponent, attorney Rosemond Blakelock, whose client won under the ruling, says such a belief is poppycock.

She said the high court's decision will apply only in a very narrow fashion to one Utah couple and perhaps a few others who are in the same situation, but she predicts this ruling will not produce the "wild things" that Snuffer fears and will not influence unions that do not already exist under state law.

The Utah Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, ruled that a 4th District judge who issued a divorce decree to Neldon and Ina Johnson in 2001 did have the authority to do that.

The Johnsons had lived together for 37 years, had children and represented to the outside world that they were a married couple — even though they were never legally married.

The couple set out to be wed in 1964, but car trouble prevented them from going through with an Arizona ceremony. They came home days later and told friends and family they indeed had gotten married. The couple even had their "marriage" sealed in the LDS Manti Temple one year after their supposed wedding date.

Ina Johnson sought a divorce and both sides agreed in 2001 on a $2.8 million property settlement under which Neldon Johnson would pay Ina Johnson $8,333 per month. However, since then Neldon Johnson has not paid alimony and has filed repeated challenges to the divorce decree, which all have been denied, according to the high court's ruling.

As Ina Johnson tried to obtain alimony, Neldon Johnson insisted the divorce between them was not valid because the couple were never legally married. He filed a motion to vacate the amended divorce decree, arguing that the divorce decision was outside the court's jurisdiction.

That motion was denied by a district court and Neldon Johnson then appealed that decision.

"We hold that the original district court that issued the Johnsons' 2001 divorce decree did not lack subject matter jurisdiction and thus Mr. Johnson cannot collaterally attack it," the Supreme Court wrote, adding that it affirmed the district court's denials of Neldon Johnson's motion to vacate the divorce decree.