Bruce and Barbara were married
in a traditional ceremony with a legal marriage license.
Aka a solemnizedstatutory marriage.
A year later they got a formal
divorce, which was finalized.
Two months later, Bruce asked
Barbara to come back and be his wife again. She agreed.
This time, there was no
ceremony or marriage license issued. However, they held themselves out
to be married.
A year later, while Barbara
was away on business, Bruce married another woman.
Barbara sued Bruce for a
divorce, claiming that she was his common-law wife.
Bruce claimed that he never
intended to be married to Barbara after their divorce.
The Trial Court found for
Bruce. Barbara appealed.
The Trial Court found that
there was no common-law marriage.
The Appellate Court reversed.
The Appellate Court found
that there were three elements to a common-law marriage:
Capacity to enter a valid
marriage.
Present, mutual agreement
to enter into a marriage to the exclusion of other relationships.
Public recognition of the
relationship as a marriage.
The Appellate Court found
that the two had the capacity to marry.
They weren't married to
other people, or members of the same sex or anything that would have
prevented them.
The Appellate Court found
that based on an objective standard, the pair had a mutual agreement to
be married.
The Court noted that
Bruce's subjective intent was insufficient to rebut the objective acts
of the parties.
The Appellate Court found
that pair had publicly presented themselves as being married.
They filed a joint tax
return, wore wedding rings, and told people they were still married.
Bruce argued that they had
discussed getting formally married, that he had dated other people behind
Barbara's back, and that he had obtained a valid marriage license to
marry someone else. He suggested that these showed he was not in a common-law
marriage, but the Court disagreed.
The basic point of this case
is that once the three objective factors for a common-law marriage are met, there is a presumption of a common-law
marriage. That presumption cannot be
rebutted by the subjective intent of one of the parties. Assuming of
course you are in a jurisdiction that permits common-law
marriage.
This is similar to the
jurisprudence related to pre-nuptial agreements.
