News Home / Legal Developments / Common-law marriage

Divorce can’t be granted because couple wasn’t common-law married

A man (the putative husband) filed for divorce from a woman (his putative wife), claiming that they had entered into a common-law marriage. At first, the Mobile County Circuit Court found that they were not common-law married, but then reversed itself on the motion of the man. The woman appealed to the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, which dismissed the appeal because the decision of the circuit court was not final. (Only final judgments of trial courts can be properly appealed, except under special circumstances.) The circuit court then held a second hearing and entered a divorce judgment. The woman appealed this divorce judgment to the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals.

The woman’s basis for appeal was that she was not common-law married to the man. To have a valid common-law marriage, the following elements must be present:

  • The parties must each have the capacity to understand what they are doing.
  • The parties must have an agreement to enter into a marriage relationship to the exclusion of other relationships.
  • There must be public recognition of the relationship as a marriage, public assumption of marital duties, and cohabitation.

The existence of a common-law marriage is a question of fact and must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. Clear and convincing evidence requires a level of proof greater than a preponderance of the evidence or the substantial weight of the evidence, but less than evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

At trial, the following evidence was introduced:

  1. In 1989, the parties began living together in a mobile home owned by the man.
  2. The parties moved the mobile home to a parcel of land the man said they had bought together, but the woman said she had purchased. Title to the land was in the woman’s name.
  3. In 1997 or 1998, the parties purchased a double-wide mobile home, which the man spent 2 years remodeling before they moved in.
  4. The mobile home was purchased by using one of the woman’s credit cards. The title of the mobile home was in the woman’s name.
  5. The parties shared expenses in remodeling the mobile home, and the man testified that he made payments on the woman’s credit card.
  6. For a short period, the couple had a joint checking account.
  7. The man had a credit card related to a credit-card account owned by the woman.
  8. At some point, the parties jointly owned automobile insurance; but at the time of the hearing, they had separate automobile insurance policies.
  9. The parties filed separate tax returns and always indicated that they were single on their returns.
  10. When the man applied for a bank loan in 2006, he indicated that he was single on the form.
  11. When she started working for a new employer in 2004, the woman indicated that she was single on her health-insurance application. When she completed the enrollment form for her new employer’s pension plan, she listed her mother as her primary beneficiary and the man as her secondary beneficiary, indicating that he was a friend.
  12. Although the man testified that he considered himself married to the woman, she maintained that she had never held herself out to be married to him. She had never introduced the man as her husband, had never used the title "Mrs.," and had never used the man’s last name as her last name.
  13. A witness who had known the parties for many years testified that he knew they lived together and acquired property together and that he "felt" like they were married, but that he had never heard them discuss their marriage.
  14. A witness-friend of the man indicated that he had never seen nor heard the parties indicate that they were married.
  15. The woman’s mother testified that parties had never married and that in conversations with her, both had referred to themselves as single.
  16. The man presented the receipt for a diamond ring and wedding band. The woman acknowledged getting the diamond ring as a gift, but that she had never been given the wedding band.
  17. The man introduced into evidence an application for water service, which listed the woman as his wife. However, this application was filed after the divorce action was started and only 5 days before the first hearing in the case.

The appeals court noted that the apparent basis of the circuit court’s decision was an earlier divorce action (filed approximately 2 years before the current action) in which the man sued the woman for divorce. According to the record, the earlier divorce action was dismissed because the parties had reconciled. After the first divorce action was dismissed, the woman petitioned the court to reopen the case because the man had destroyed her property and the court needed "to rule on the division of the property and bills from this common law marriage." The appeals court did not find this to be clear and convincing evidence of a common-law marriage.

The appeals court also noted that cohabitation alone was insufficient proof of common-law marriage. The appeals court pointed out that public knowledge of a common-law marriage was the most effective means of insuring that more casual relations between men and women are not elevated to the status of marriage.

Therefore, the appeals court reversed the circuit court’s decision for lack of clear and convincing evidence. See Cochran v. Chapman, decided on September 16, 2011.

Items on this web page are general in nature. They cannot—and should not—replace consultation with a competent legal professional. Nothing on this web page should be considered rendering legal advice.

Return to top.
Return to Legal Developments.