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
© 2024 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 All'Virtue Begets Virtue': Tips for Practicing Law (and Living) Ethically
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Social Media Celebrities Clash in $100M Lawsuit
- 2Federal Judge Sets 2026 Admiralty Bench Trial in Baltimore Bridge Collapse Litigation
- 3Trump Media Accuses Purchaser Rep of Extortion, Harassment After Merger
- 4Judge Slashes $2M in Punitive Damages in Sober-Living Harassment Case
- 5Georgia Supreme Court Honoring Troutman Pepper Partner, Former Chief Justice
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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