I. Issue
A~ (claimant) applied for spouse’s insurance benefits on the earnings record of J~,
the insured number holder (NH). The claimant alleges they began living together in
a “common law marriage” in the Netherlands in 1992, and have continuously lived together
since that time. On May XX, 1999, the claimant and the NH entered into a Domestic
Partnership Agreement setting forth their mutual rights and obligations as a couple.
Is the claimant the NH’s spouse for purposes of determining her entitlement to spouse’s
insurance benefits under title II of the Social Security Act?
II. Short Answer
No. The claimant’s relationship to the NH would not be recognized as a valid marriage
under Netherlands law. Nor does that law give the claimant the same status as a legally
married spouse of the NH for purposes of intestate inheritance.
III. Factual Background
The claimant, a female, alleges she lived together with the NH, a male, in a “common
law marriage” in the Netherlands. The terms of their cohabitation are spelled out
in a Domestic Partnership Agreement (Agreement) dated May XX, 1999. The Agreement
states, in part, that the claimant and the NH “are in a committed relationship, that
they have been living together since August XX 1992, and that they have been managing
a household together since that time. Agreement, p. 11. Significantly, after naming
the parties to the agreement, the Agreement expressly states that they are “both unmarried and not registered partners.” Id. (emphasis added). The Agreement then provides a detailed specification of property
rights of the claimant and the NH. Id. at pp. 12-20. The agreement provides for termination of the relationship as follows:
a. through one party withdrawing, at the moment in which the party withdraws. The
contract is terminated by one party sending a registered letter to the other party,
in which a minimum notice of one month must be observed.
b. by the death of one of the parties, or by one of the parties receiving a final
and conclusive declaration of bankruptcy.
c. through marriage or registered domestic partnership.
d. . . . .
Agreement, pp. 12-13 (emphasis added). The claimant applied for spouse’s insurance
benefits on the NH’s record on July XX, 2014.
IV. Discussion[1]
To be entitled to spouse’s insurance benefits under title II of the Social Security
Act (Act), a claimant must show, among other things, that they are the “spouse” of
an individual entitled to old-age or disability insurance benefits. See Act § 202(b)-(c), 216(a)(1). As pertinent here, the Act provides two methods for
a claimant to show they are the spouse of an insured individual.
First, a claimant is the spouse of an insured individual if the claimant was validly
married to the insured individual at the time the claimant applied for benefits. See Act § 216(h)(1)(A)(i); 20 C.F.R. § 404.345. Second, even if the claimant was not
validly married to the insured individual at the time the claimant applied for benefits,
the claimant will be deemed to be the insured individual’s spouse if the claimant
would have the same status as a spouse of the insured individual with respect to the
inheritance of the insured individual’s intestate personal property. See Act § 216(h)(1)(A)(ii); 20 C.F.R. § 404.345.
In determining whether a claimant qualifies as a spouse of an insured individual,
the agency applies the law of the State where the insured individual was domiciled
at the time the claimant applied for benefits. See Act § 216(h)(1)(A); 20 C.F.R. § 404.345. If the insured individual was not domiciled
in any State at that time, the agency applies the law of the District of Columbia.
See Act § 216(h)(1)(A); 20 C.F.R. § 404.345.
The claimant bears the burden of proving they are entitled to benefits as the insured
individual’s spouse. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.345, 404.704, 404.723, 404.725.
A. The Claimant Was Not Validly Married to the NH under Netherlands Law.
Under the law of the District of Columbia, the validity of a marriage is determined
by the law of the jurisdiction where the marriage was entered into. See McConnell v. McConnell, 99 F. Supp. 493, 494 (D.D.C. 1951); Carr v. Varr, 82 F. Supp. 398 (D.D.C. 1949); Gerardi v. Gerardi, 69 F. Supp. 296 (D.D.C. 1946).[2] Here, the claimant alleges she lived together with the NH in a “common law marriage”
in the Netherlands. We therefore consider whether the claimant and the NH were validly
married under Netherlands law.
Netherlands law recognizes three types of union between two persons of the same or
opposite sex: a “marriage,” a “registered partnership,” or a “cohabitation agreement.”
The rules defining marriage are contained in book 1 of the Civil Code. See Bk. 1, Tit. 1.5, Law of Persons & Family Law, DUTCH CIVIL CODE (in effect on Jan.
1, 1970, as updated to Feb. 4, 2014), http://www.dutchcivillaw.com/civilcodebook01.htm, archived at http://perma.cc/F6UM-8A8V, Boek 1 [Book 1] [BURGERLUK WETBOEK] [BW] [CIVIL CODE], as amended, http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0002656/Boek1/geldigheidsdatum_19-11-2015, archived at http://perma.cc/YM3P-AYPR (last visited Mar. 8, 2016). The Civil Code prescribes numerous formalities and procedures
that must be observed before a certificate of marriage will be issued. See id.
Registered partnerships are governed by title 1.5A of book 1 of the Civil Code. See supra. Like a marriage, a registered partnership comes into being only if the parties observe
statutorily prescribed formalities and procedures, many of which are the same as those
required for marriage. See supra.
A cohabitation agreement, unlike a marriage or registered partnership, is governed
by general contract law. Marriage, Registered Partnerships and Cohabitation Agreements, GOVERNMENT.JL, https://www.government.nl/topics/family-law/contents/marriage-registered-partnership-and-cohabitation-agreements, archived at http://perma.cc/547B-FLZ4 (last visited Mar. 8, 2016). No legislative provisions specifically regulate cohabitation
contracts. See id.
In the claim at issue, there are no allegations or evidence that the claimant and
the NH followed the necessary procedures to become married under the Civil Code. Indeed,
the parties’ Domestic Partnership Agreement provides that the agreement will terminate
if the parties enter a marriage or registered partnership. See supra. This strongly evidences that the relationship created by the Domestic Partnership
Agreement was neither a marriage nor a registered partnership. Thus, the claimant
is not validly married to the NH under Netherlands law. Accordingly, the claimant
cannot qualify as the NH’s spouse on the basis of a valid marriage. See Act § 216(h)(1)(A)(i); 20 C.F.R. § 404.345.
B. The Claimant Does Not Have the Same Status as a Spouse of the NH under Netherlands
Intestacy Law.
Even if the claimant was not validly married to NH, she will be deemed to be the NH’s
spouse if, under the law applied by the courts of the District of Columbia in determining
the devolution of intestate personal property, she has the “same status” as a spouse
of the NH with respect to the taking of such property. See Act § 216(h)(1)(A)(ii); 20 C.F.R. § 404.345.
Under District of Columbia law, intestate inheritance rights are determined by the
law of the decedent’s domicile. Javier v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 407 F.3d 1244, 1247 (D.D.C. 2005) (citing In re Gray’s Estate, 168 F. Supp. 124 (D.D.C. 1958)). Here, the NH is domiciled in the Netherlands. Accordingly,
to determine whether the claimant has the requisite status with respect to inheritance
of the NH’s intestate property, we apply Netherlands law.
As discussed above, Netherlands recognizes three kinds of relationships between people
of the same or opposite sex: a marriage, a registered partnership, or a cohabitation
agreement. Marriages and registered partnerships convey essentially identical rights,
including the same status with respect to the inheritance of intestate personal property.
Indeed, the Civil Code equates “registered partners” with “spouses” under its provisions
on intestate succession. Bk. 4, Law of Succession, art. 4.8(1) DCC, http://www.dutchcivillaw.com/civilcodebook44.htm (as in effect on Feb. 4, 2014), archived at http://perma.cc/LLX7-99PN; THE CIVIL CODE OF THE NETHERLANDS, BOEK 4 BW, as amended, http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0002761/Boek4/geldigheidsdatum_13-11-2015, archived at http://perma.cc/Z2ZS-QTX4 (last visited Mar. 8, 2016). Partners to a cohabitation agreement, however, do not
enjoy the same status as spouses or registered partners for purposes of intestate
inheritance. Instead, such couples have inheritance rights only to the extent set
forth in the cohabitation agreement. Trouwen, samenlevingscontract en geregistreerd partnerschap [Marriage, Cohabitation, and Registered Partnership, RIJKSOVERHEID, https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/trouwen-samenlevingscontract-en-geregistreerd-partnerschap/vraag-en-antwoord/samenlevingscontract-afsluiten, archived at http://perma.cc/WYC4-HLHU (last visited Mar. 8, 2016).
As discussed above, it appears clear in this case that the claimant and the NH entered
into cohabitation agreement, rather than a marriage or registered partnership. There
are no allegations or evidence that the parties followed the procedures required to
enter a marriage or registered partnership. Further, their Domestic Partnership Agreement
explicitly states that the agreement would terminate if they eventually entered into
a marriage or registered partnership. See supra. Since parties to a cohabitation agreement do not have the same rights as a married
partners with regard to intestate inheritance, the claimant does not have the same
status as a spouse of the NH for purposes of intestate inheritance. Accordingly, the
claimant cannot be deemed to be the NH’s spouse based on inheritance rights.
V. Conclusion
The claimant does not qualify as the NH’s spouse for purposes of determining her entitlement
to spouse’s insurance benefits. First, the claimant’s relationship with the NH would
not be recognized as a valid marriage under Netherlands law. Second, the claimant
does not have the same status as a spouse of the NH for purposes of intestate inheritance.