Renshaw v. Heckler
Renshaw v. Heckler, 787 F.2d 50 (2d Cir.1986).
NATURE OF THE CASE: This was a lawsuit involving a dispute over the status of an alleged common law marriage.
FACTS: Albert and Edith Renshaw began living together in 1958. They had no formal marriage ceremony and Edith Renshaw testified that they lived together as though they were married and they considered themselves husband and wife. Edith adopted Albert’s last name and changed her social security card. They told couples and friends that they were married including their relatives. H gave W a wedding band shortly after they resided together. They celebrated wedding anniversaries and filed joint tax returns as husband and wife and W was listed as H’s wife in his life insurance policy. The Renshaws had one child.
Albert died and the Secretary of Health and Human Services determined that Edith Renshaw was not married to Albert and therefore was not entitled to widow’s insurance benefits. It was determined that New York law governed the status of the marriage. New York law did not recognize common law marriages, but would recognize such marriages that were formed in states recognizing common law marriages. Pennsylvania recognized common law marriage and W claimed that the marriage formed in Pennsylvania. At trial the court found that at best only sixteen days were spent in Pennsylvania over the 21 year period and as such they did not qualify for a common law marriage. Edith Renshaw appealed.
ISSUE: 1) Is the length of time a couple spends in a state recognizing common law marriage used to determine whether a common law marriage exists? 2) What is the proof of common law marriage?
RULE OF LAW: 1) No. The length of time a couple spends in a state recognizing common law marriage is not used to determine whether a common law marriage exists. 2) The proof of common law marriage requires uttering words in the present tense with the intent to establish such a relationship and holding oneself out in a general and broad way to all as being married.
Even though W spent little time in Pennsylvania, there is considerable proof that there was extensive cohabitation and that they held themselves out as married to all. Under Pennsylvania law, the question of whether a person had been legally married to another is a mixed question of law and fact for the purpose of review. These underlying facts are undisputed and we are not bound by the substantial standard of review on this issue. Accordingly we hold that the Secretary of Health and Human Services erred when he concluded that W and H were not married.
Disposition: Reversed; for Renshaw.