Question
You asked whether the dual proxy ceremonial marriage between A~, the number holder
(NH), and B~ (Groom) in Montana is a valid marriage for the purpose of NH changing
her last name in the agency’s records. You also asked whether the dual proxy nature
of the marriage could affect entitlement to spousal or survivor’s benefits in the
future.
Short Answer
NH provided sufficient information to change her last name in the agency’s records.
The question of whether the dual proxy nature of her marriage will affect potential
entitlement to survivor’s or spousal benefits is premature, but we do not believe
it will affect possible future benefits.
Background
According to the information provided, NH and Groom underwent a dual proxy ceremonial
marriage in Montana. Prior to the marriage, NH and Groom completed Affidavits in Support
of Proxy Marriage in which they stated that Groom was unable to attend the marriage
ceremony because he was in active military service, they intended to marry without
personal appearances, and they consented to marriage by proxy. [1]
NH provided certified copies of a Marriage License and Marriage Certificate issued
by the State of Montana, dated February X, 2019. The Marriage License identifies NH
and Groom as residents of California, and identifies NH as “A~.”
The Marriage Certificate states a minister joined NH and Groom in Marriage on February
X, 2019, in the State of Montana, with two individuals appearing on their behalves.
The Marriage Certificate identifies NH as “A~.”
Discussion
A. Federal Law
1. Name change
Social Security regulations provide that a number holder may ask the agency to change
or correct her records, including her name. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 401.65, 422.110 (2019).[2] A name change replaces a prior legal name [3] with a different legal name based on a “name change event.” POMS RM 10212.150.A. A name change event includes a U.S. ceremonial marriage. POMS RM 10212.010.
A number holder must present convincing documentary evidence to justify a change in
her records. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 422.107, 422.110(a). To process a name change, the number holder must
provide evidence of the name change event, a new name, and the number holder’s identity
on the latest Numident record. See 20 C.F.R. § 422.107(a), (c); POMS RM 10210.015.A; POMS RM 10212.015.A; POMS RM 10212.150.A.
The agency shall accept all marriage documents issued within the 50 U.S. States as
evidence of a name change based on a U.S. ceremonial marriage. POMS RM 10212.025. Marriage certificates and copies of marriage records are acceptable evidence of
a name change. Id.
2. Survivor's and spousal benefits
A claimant may qualify for survivor’s benefits on an insured individual’s record if
his or her marriage to the insured individual was valid under the laws of the state
where the number holder was domiciled at the time of death. See Social Security Act (Act) § 216; 20 C.F.R. § 404.345; POMS RS 00207.001.A.1.
A claimant may be eligible for spousal benefits if, among other criteria, she is validly
married to an insured individual under the laws of the state where the insured individual
was domiciled at the time the claimant filed an application (or during the life of
the application). See Act § 202; 20 C.F.R. § 404.345; POMS RS 00202.001.A.1.
B. State Law [4]
Marriage ceremonies in Montana are governed by Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 3 of Montana
Code Annotated (MCA). MCA Section 40-1-301 governs solemnization (the marriage ceremony)
and registration of marriages. Subsections 40-1-301(2) and (4) set forth the requirements
for a marriage by proxy. Subsection (2) provides that if a party to a marriage is
unable to be present at the solemnization, the party may authorize a third person
in writing to act as a proxy. MCA§ 40-1-301(2). Subsection (4) requires that one party
to the proxy marriage be either a member of the armed forces of the United States
on federal active duty or a resident of Montana at the time of the marriage application
and license. MCA§ 40-1-301(4). Subjection (4) also requires that one party or a legal
representative appear before the clerk of the court and pay the marriage license fee.
Id.
C. Analysis
1. NH’s marriage is a valid name change event.
We believe the dual proxy ceremonial marriage is valid under Montana law. The information
provided by NH and Groom indicates that the requirements of Subsections (2) and (4)
of MCA Section 40-1-301 have been met, and that a Montana court would treat the proxy
marriage as valid.
NH and Groom each provided copies of affidavits notarized in January 2019 in support
of the proxy marriage. In the affidavits, NH and Groom stated that they were unable
to attend the solemnization due to the Groom being in active military service, they
intended that the marriage be performed without personal appearance, and they consented
to the marriage being performed by proxy. This evidence satisfies Subsection (2) of
the relevant Montana code section. MCA § 40-1-301(2).
NH and Groom also stated in the affidavits that one party was either a member of the
armed forces of the United States on federal active duty or a resident of Montana
as required by Subsection (4).[5] MCA§ 40-1-301(4). The groom also provided a copy of an identification card indicating
that he serves in the army. The marriage certificate indicates that two individuals
appeared at the solemnization on behalf of the bride and groom, and this document
and the marriage license provide evidence that a legal representative of the parties
appeared before the clerk of the court and paid the marriage license fee as required
by Subsection (4). Id. We also note that the bride and groom provided a certified copy of a marriage certificate,
which is presumptive evidence of marriage under MCA Section 40-1-322. Given the evidence
provided—affidavits from the bride and groom, attestation and proof of military service,
and a certified copy of a marriage license and certificate—we believe that a Montana
court would treat the proxy marriage as valid.
We also considered whether a double proxy marriage is permitted in Montana. Section
40-1-301 is silent on the issue, and there appears to be no case law addressing it.
However, legal treatises indicate that double proxy marriages are permitted under
Section 40-1-301. See Marie Connolly, Those Double Proxy Marriages: Do You Want to Get Involved, 31-OCT
Mont. Law 29, Oct. 2005 (noting that Montana is the only state that allows for double
proxy marriages but stating that Montana clerks of court have reported that other
jurisdictions have not treated double proxy marriages as being valid outside of Montana
when a party is not a U.S. citizen or there is no established relationship); see also Lucas I. Quass, Proxy Marriages and the Military Widow Penalty: Excluding Alien-Widows
of Fallen Soldiers, 20 So. Cal. Rev. L. & Soc. Just. 501, 514 n. 106, 108, 109 (Summer
2011) (citing news articles regarding Montana’s double proxy weddings). In addition,
a letter from a Montana law firm submitted by NH and Groom states that double-proxy
marriages in Montana are accomplished according to Section 40-1-301(2) and (4).
Moreover, based on the rules of statutory construction, a Montana court could reasonably
conclude that double proxy marriages are permitted under MCA Subsections 40-1-301(2)
and (4). Subsection (2) permits “a party” to a marriage to authorize a proxy if the
party is unable to be present, and subsection (4) requires “one party” to a proxy
marriage to be on federal active duty or a Montana resident. Given the legislature’s
use of the words “a party” in subsection 2 and “one party” in subsection 4, a reasonable
interpretation that is consistent with the language of Section 40-1-301 as a whole,
is that both parties may authorize a proxy if each are unable to be present, and if
one party meets either the military service or the residency requirement. See Montana Power Co. v. Cremer, 596 P.2d 483, 485 (Mont. 1979) (listing the rules of statutory construction, in
relevant part, as determining whether the interpretation is consistent with the statute
as a whole and whether the interpretation reflects the intent of the legislature considering
the plain language of the statute). Had the legislature intended to limit the authorization
of a proxy to “one” absent party under Subsection 2, the legislature could have said
so, but did not. Therefore, double proxy marriages, including this one, appear to
be permitted under Montana law.
NH provided certified copies of a marriage license and marriage certificate from the
State of Montana, which reflects her last name changed from T~ to R~. The agency shall
accept such evidence as acceptable evidence of a name change. See POMS RM 10212.025. Therefore, NH provided sufficient evidence to change her last name.
2. The dual proxy nature of NH’s marriage is unlikely to affect
eligibility for spousal or survivor’s benefits.
The validity of the marriage between NH and Groom for purposes of survivor’s benefits
will depend on where the insured individual is domiciled at the time of his or her
death. See Act § 216(h)(1)(A)(i); 20 C.F.R. § 404.345; POMS RS 00207.001.A.1. Similarly, the validity of the marriage for purposes of spousal benefits will
depend on where the insured individual is domiciled at the time of the application
for such benefits. See Act § 216(h)(1)(A)(i); 20 C.F.R. § 404.345; POMS RS 00202.001.A.1. Since it appears there has been no death or application for benefits, a determination
of the validity of the marriage for purposes of survivor’s or spousal benefits would
be speculative at this time.
However, we do not believe the marriage will affect potential eligibility for survivor’s
or spousal benefits. “The law of the place where a marriage occurred ordinarily determines
the validity of a marriage.” POMS GN 00305.005.B. As discussed above, NH’s marriage occurred in Montana and we believe it is valid
under Montana law.
Otherwise, a marriage may be void if it violates a state’s law or public policy. Id. Examples of such marriages include those involving people under a certain age and
polygamous marriages. Id. The issue of marriage by proxy concerns procedural requirements for marriage under
the laws of Montana, and is not of the nature of underage or polygamous marriages.
Therefore, we do not believe marriage by proxy would violate a state’s law or public
policy now that the marriage has been solemnized by the State of Montana.
Conclusion
NH provided sufficient information to change her last name. We do not believe the
marriage by proxy between NH and Groom will affect potential entitlement to survivor’s
or spousal benefits, but a separate determination may be needed if or when an application
for such benefits is filed.