2025 · Regular session · House bill
HB2240
Texas already treated a marriage as void if either person was still married to someone else.
Official caption: Relating to certain void marriages.
Official report lists House author(s): Dutton. This does not identify sponsors or amendment drafters.
Bill explanation published · Version and amendment review scope is stated below · Individual amendment records may not be separately annotated.
Bill highlights
Selected points from the published explanation. Follow each point to its source-linked context; conditions and limits may matter.
- Texas already treated a marriage as void if either person was still married to someone else.
- To use the exception, that person must not have known at the time of the later marriage that the other person had an existing marriage; must not have lived with the other person as spouses or represented themselves as married since learning of it; and must file a suit to declare the later marriage void within 30 days after learning of the existing marriage, unless the special 90-day rule applies.
- The filing period is 90 days after learning of the existing marriage for someone on active duty in the U.S. armed forces; a Texas military-forces member deployed abroad on federal orders or on state active duty performing emergency response; or someone in active service abroad as a foreign officer employed by the U.S.
- Separately, new Section 9.401 says a divorce or annulment decree is void if the issuing court lacked jurisdiction when it rendered the decree, and allows a putative spouse to sue to have the decree declared void.
What does it do?
Texas already treated a marriage as void if either person was still married to someone else. It also allowed that later marriage to become valid after the earlier marriage ended if the couple then lived together as spouses and held themselves out as married. HB2240 adds a limited exception for a putative spouse—a person in the purported marriage—who did not know about the existing marriage. Final law, Section 1.
To use the exception, that person must not have known at the time of the later marriage that the other person had an existing marriage; must not have lived with the other person as spouses or represented themselves as married since learning of it; and must file a suit to declare the later marriage void within 30 days after learning of the existing marriage, unless the special 90-day rule applies. These are combined requirements, not a general right to undo any marriage within 30 days. Final law, amended Section 6.202(b).
The filing period is 90 days after learning of the existing marriage for someone on active duty in the U.S. armed forces; a Texas military-forces member deployed abroad on federal orders or on state active duty performing emergency response; or someone in active service abroad as a foreign officer employed by the U.S. Department of State. In a suit under this provision, a respondent in one of those same service categories may answer within 90 days after being served, notwithstanding another law or rule. The filing clock and answer clock start with different events. Final law, Section 6.202(b)(3) and (c).
Separately, new Section 9.401 says a divorce or annulment decree is void if the issuing court lacked jurisdiction when it rendered the decree, and allows a putative spouse to sue to have the decree declared void. This is about the court’s legal authority, not simply disagreement with its decision. The 30/90-day filing limits above are written for the marriage challenge under Section 6.202, not as a stated deadline in new Section 9.401. HB2240 took effect June 20, 2025, after receiving the votes required for immediate effect. Final law, Sections 2–3; official history.
What changed along the way?
The introduced bill proposed a two-year filing deadline measured from when the person knew or should have known about the existing marriage. The House committee substitute replaced that with 30 days from actual knowledge and added the requirement not to continue living as spouses or representing oneself as married after learning of the existing marriage. The engrossed bill and Senate committee printing retained those substantive provisions. The proposed two-year period did not become law. Introduced text; House committee text; all text versions.
The official index lists one floor amendment: Senator Birdwell’s Senate second-reading amendment, adopted May 27. It added the special 90-day filing period and 90-day answer period for the specified military and State Department service categories. Both changes survive in the final law. The House concurred May 29. The court-jurisdiction provision was in the introduced bill and remained in the final law; it was not added by this floor amendment. Amendment index; complete amendment; final law.
For the full amendment record, open the official amendment index.
Official bill versions
Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.
Who could benefit—and who could bear the costs?
Someone who unknowingly entered a marriage while the other person remained married may gain a way to prevent the later marriage from becoming valid under the existing validation rule, but must meet the conduct and short filing requirements. Qualifying service members and State Department officers receive more time; qualifying respondents also receive extra time to answer. Courts and parties may face proceedings over marital status or a prior decree’s validity. The act does not promise a particular property, support or inheritance outcome or reimburse legal fees. Final law.
The Legislative Budget Board’s final posted fiscal note, dated May 28, 2025, anticipates no significant state or local-government fiscal effect and assumes any implementation costs can be absorbed within existing resources. The introduced, House-substitute and engrossed notes reach the same conclusion. These are government-budget estimates, not estimates of an individual’s litigation costs. Final fiscal note.
Official sources
- Bill history and latest recorded action
- Bill versions, analyses and fiscal notes
- Action history and votes
- Amendment index
Catalog report retrieved 2026-10-25. Check the official record for corrections or later changes.
