Defining A Marital Relationship
The marital relationship has wide-ranging impact throughout the legal world. Inheritance, creditor liability, personal liability, tax liability, employment…
February 13, 2019 at 11:50 AM
5 minute read
The marital relationship has wide-ranging impact throughout the legal world. Inheritance, creditor liability, personal liability, tax liability, employment benefits, Medicaid benefits, social security benefits—to name but a few—are all impacted by one's marital status.
Providing appropriate legal advice can depend on knowing the marital status of a client and the beginning date of marriage. The determination is fairly straightforward when the client is in a formal marriage. However, Texas is one of a few remaining states that also recognizes informal or common law marriage. For clients who are or may be in a common law marriage, determining whether there is a marital relationship and the date the relationship began is far more complicated.
For attorneys who represent clients in same-sex relationships, this question has special significance, particularly in the event of death or divorce. Texas was among the few remaining states prohibiting same-sex marriage when the United States Supreme Court declared such prohibitions unconstitutional on June 26, 2015. From that day forward, many same-sex couples formerly not legally married in Texas were suddenly married. But because Texas also recognizes informal marriages, the beginning date of the marriage may extend back to well before 2015.
Informal Marriage
Per the Texas Family Code, section 2.401, the creation of an informal marriage, also known as common law marriage, can occur in one of two ways: by filing a declaration of an informal marriage with the county clerk, or by meeting the elements of an informal marriage outlined in the Texas Family Code.
The filing of a declaration of an informal marriage establishes a legal marriage from the date specified on the document onward. Many counties provide search tools allowing individuals to search for recorded declarations of informal marriages on-line. These documents allow couples to select a beginning date of their marriage; thus, the start of the marriage may be well before the document is signed and recorded.
If no declaration of informal marriage is on file, a party can establish an informal marriage by meeting the three elements outlined in the Texas Family Code: (1) agreeing to be married; (2) after agreeing to be married, living together in Texas as spouses; and (3) representing themselves to others as a married couple.
Agreement to Be Married
In Small v. McMaster, 352 S.W.3d 280, 283 (Tex.App.-Houston [ 14th Dist.] 2011, pet. denied), the court explained that to establish an agreement to be married, both individuals must agree to have a present, immediate and permanent relationship. An express agreement to be married is not necessarily required; rather, an agreement to be married can be established by circumstantial evidence, including that the couple met the two other elements establishing an informal marriage—i.e. that they lived together as spouses and held themselves out as spouses. Humphreys v. Humphreys, 364 S.W.2d 177 (Tex. Sup. 1963); Lee v. Lee, 981 S.W.2d 903, 906 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, no pet.).
Living Together as Spouses
The law requires not just that the couple live together, but that they live together in Texas. While spouses do not have to live together continuously throughout their marriage, per the Texas Family Code, they must live together “as spouses.” Thus, the statute contemplates that they meet the other two elements of informal marriage—holding out and agreeing to be married—while living together in Texas.
The concept of living together requires “a constancy of dwelling together” as opposed to a regular overnight guest. McArthur v. Hall, 169 S.W.2d 724 (Tex.Civ.App.—Fort Worth 1943, writ ref'd w.o.m.).
Representing to Others As Married
The third and final element constitutes holding out to the public as married. To meet this element, both parties must hold out as married. Texas Family Code section 2.401; Small v. McMaster, 352 S.W.3d 280, 285 (Tex.App. – Houston [14th Dist] 2011, pet. denied.).
The extent of holding out must be such that the community thought the couple to be married. Small v. McMaster, 352 S.W.3d 280, 285 (Tex.App. – Houston [14th Dist] 2011, pet. denied.). Even if the marriage is kept secret from some family members, if a party can establish that the couple had a reputation among their community as married, it is sufficient to establish holding out. See In re Estate of Giessel, 734 S.W.2d 27, 31 (Tex.App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, writ ref'd n.r.e.). On the other hand, if the marriage is largely secret from the community but known only among a few family members, there is no common law marriage. Winfield v. Renfro, 821 S.W.2d 640 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, subsequent mandamus proceeding sub nom.
Holding out doesn't require an express reference to each other has husband or wife. As with an agreement to be married, conduct and actions of the parties can be sufficient. For example, in Rosales v. Rosales, 377 S.W.2d 661, none of the witnesses were able to recall any instance in which the couple referred to each other as husband and wife, but the court nonetheless held the couple held out as married based on witness testimony that they had a reputation for being married and joint charge accounts identifying themselves as husband and wife. The court explained that “actions of the parties… sometimes speak louder than words of introduction.” Id.
Determining whether there is an informal marriage is a fact sensitive inquiry. No matter the area of practice, the ability to identify those clients who may be in an informal marriage as well as the beginning date of the marriage may be key to properly advising a client.
Elizabeth “Liz” Brenner is an attorney with Burns Anderson Jury & Brenner in Austin, where she focuses on probate and trust litigation, probate administration and guardianship. www.bajb.com.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNondisparagement Clauses in Divorce: Balancing Family Harmony and Free Speech
6 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250