Staudenmayer v. Staudenmayer
714 A.2d 1016 (Pa. 1998)


Facts: Theodore Staudenmayer (P) and Linda Staudenmayer (D) had lived and cohabitated together since 1976 except for a short period before their final separation in 1992, when P filed for divorce. In 1984, the parties married in a ceremonial marriage. Prior to this marriage, P had been injured, resulting in a tort claim and settlement. D claimed this settlement was marital property because they had entered into a common law marriage prior to the ceremonial marriage. The trial court held that the tort settlement was nonmarital property because D failed to prove a common law marriage by clear and convincing evidence. The appellate court reversed. P appeals.

Issue: Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it held that the exchange of verba in praesenti (present agreement to marry) requirement of a common law marriage had not been proved by clear and convincing evidence?

Holding: No. The Supreme Court, Appeal Docket 1997, Newman, J., held that wife, who was living and able to testify, failed to prove the establishment of a common law marriage, prior to parties' ceremonial marriage, through the exchange of verba in praesenti between her and husband for purposes of determining whether husband's tort settlement was marital property subject to equitable distribution. Reversed.

Analysis: The requirements of a common law marriage are (i) the exchange of verba in praesenti, (ii) constant cohabitation, and (iii) a general and broad reputation of marriage. When the parties are available to testify to the exchange of verba in praesenti, the party claiming a common law marriage must prove verba in praesenti with clear and convincing evidence. The relevance of evidence of constant cohabitation and reputation of marriage is only to support her claim when faced with contradictory testimony regarding verba in praesenti. The record supports the trial court's finding that this requirement was not proved by clear and convincing evidence. The rebuttable presumption in favor of common law marriage is raised when the parties are disabled from testifying regarding the exchange of verba in praesenti, but there is proof of constant cohabitation and a general and broad reputation of marriage. The presumption was developed as a remedial device. Often the claim of common law marriage is made by a surviving putative spouse. The surviving putative spouse is prevented from testifying as to verba in praesenti. No rule, however, prevents these spouses from testifying.