Staudenmayer v. Staudenmayer
Staudenmayer v. Staudenmayer, 714 A.2d 1016 (Pa. 1998).
NATURE OF THE CASE: This was a dispute over the existence of a common law marriage.
FACTS: Mr. and Ms. Staudenmayer were married in a civil ceremony in December 1984. They lived together from 1976 until their separation in 1992. H filed for divorce in 1992 and the trial court held the equitable distribution hearing in 1996.
The main issue was a tort settlement that H received from a personal injury lawsuit in 1983. The tort claim was settled and H was awarded $600 per month and a lump sum of $70,000. H argued that this property was not marital property because they were not married. W claimed that they had a common law marriage as early as 1978. W testified that they maintained joint checking accounts and that she began to use H’s last name and had changed her Social Security card, driver’s license, and credit cards to her new identity. The deed to their home listed them as husband and wife with tenants by entirety. They filed federal income taxes jointly as a married couple. However, upon the birth of her daughter Ms. Staudenmayer indicated that she was not married on the birth certificate.
The trial court declared the tort settlement not to be marital property in that W failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that W and H had a reputation of marriage. W had told her immediate family that W and H were not married. The Superior court reversed and this appeal resulted.
ISSUE: Is a common law marriage to be formed between parties by express words of agreement with the burden of proof on the party to show by clear and convincing evidence that such was the case?
RULE OF LAW: Yes. A common law marriage is to be formed between parties by express words of agreement. The party asserting the existence of the common law marriage has the burden of proof to show by clear and convincing evidence that the marriage was formed.
HOLDING AND DECISION: Courts look upon common law marriages with great disfavor because of the ability to create mischief between the parties. Under common law marriage laws there must therefore be clear and convincing evidence of its existence and the courts will review such a claim with great scrutiny. The party bearing the burden of proof must prove continual cohabitation and a reputation for marriage, which is not partial or divided but is broad and general and thus will raise a rebuttable presumption of marriage. The court held that Ms. Staudenmayer’s claim of common law marital status in 1978 contradicted her admission that she indicated in the support papers filed in 1993 that she was unmarried at the time her daughter was born.
DISPOSITION: Reversed; for Mr. Staudenmayer.