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


PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant former husband sought review from the Superior Court (Pennsylvania), which affirmed in part and reversed in part the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Susquehanna County, which found the existence of a common law marriage prior to a ceremonial marriage. The trial court held that appellant's structured tort settlement was marital property and that appellee former wife was not entitled to a portion of such settlement.

FACTS: Appellant former husband and appellee former wife lived together for over eight years before being married in a civil ceremony. In an action for divorce, the trial court held that appellee failed to prove that the parties were married before the ceremony and that appellant's structured tort settlement was not part of the marital property. The appellate court reversed the trial court and held that appellee had met her burden of proving that the parties were married prior to such ceremony and that she was entitled to a portion of the settlement. The court held that a common law marriage could exist but that there was a heavy burden on the party alleging the marriage. The court held that words in the present tense were required to prove a common law marriage but that a rebuttable presumption in favor of a common law marriage existed where there was an absence of testimony regarding the exchange of verba in praesenti. The court held that appellee failed to prove the existence of a common law marriage. The court reversed the appellate court and reinstated the judgment of the trial court.


Issues:
a) 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?
b) Is a rebuttable presumption in favor of a common law marriage available when testimony regarding the exchange of verba in praesenti may be admitted into evidence?

Holding: a) No. b) No. Judgment 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 prae¬senti. 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.


Concurrence: I would go beyond the court's opinion, which would not abol¬ish common law marriages, but only expressed hostility towards them. I would abolish common law marriage in the state.