Chandler v. Central Oil Corp., Inc.
Chandler v. Central Oil Corp., Inc., 253 Kan. 50, 853 P.2d 649 (1993).
NATURE OF THE CASE: This was a dispute over a common law marriage.
FACTS: Fred Chandler (H) was shot during a robbery in the course of his employment as a gas station attendant for Central Oil Corporation and died from his injuries. Fred had three children from three different women including a son, Ruben, who was 33 at the time of Fred’s death. Fred and Ruben’s mother Dorothy were never married. After Fred’s relationship with Dorothy he married three other women and had two other children.
When Fred was married to his second wife Eliza, Eliza did not know that Fred had never obtained a divorce from his first wife, Noletta. Fred married his third wife Mary after living together for three years and they lived together for three more until Fred died.
Both Eliza and Mary claimed to be Fred’s surviving spouse. An Administrative Law Judge and the Director of Workers Compensation determined that a common law marriage existed between Eliza and Fred and determined that under these facts, Fred lacked capacity to enter into a marriage with Mary because his prior common law marriage had not been dissolved. Eliza was therefore entitled to the benefits. Mary appealed and the district court affirmed the ruling of the Administrative Law Judge. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case with directions to presume the validity of the marriage between Fred and Mary and to provide Eliza with the opportunity to rebut that presumption.
ISSUE: Does the law raise a presumption of the validity of a subsequent marriage?
RULE OF LAW: Yes. The law raises a presumption of the validity of a subsequent marriage.
HOLDING AND DECISION: This presumption is one of the strongest in the law. When an attempt is made to annul a marriage on the ground of a prior subsisting marriage of the other party, the presumption of validity of the subsequent marriage is stronger than and overcomes the presumption of continuance of the previous marriage. One who seeks to impeach the subsequent marriage assumes the burden of proving the evidence so cogent as to compel conviction that the previous marriage has not been dissolved. Eliza now bears that burden of proof. Clear and convincing evidence is not the burden but this must be established by a preponderance of the evidence. Judgment of the district court is reversed and the case is remanded. Court of appeals is affirmed and modified.