QUESTION PRESENTED
S~ (Claimant) filed an application for surviving spouse’s benefits and the lump sum
death payment (LSDP) under Title II of the Social Security Act (Act) on the record
of the deceased number holder (NH) R~, who died on September 20, 2024, domiciled in
Antigua and Barbuda. [1] The Claimant alleges an opposite-sex common-law marriage with the NH in Antigua and
Barbuda that began in 1998 and ended with the NH’s death in 2024. You asked whether
the Claimant is the NH’s widow(er) under the Act to determine her entitlement to Title
II benefits on the NH’s record.
SHORT ANSWER
Applying section 216(h)(1)(A) of the Act, we believe there is legal support for the
agency to find that the Claimant is not the NH’s widow(er) for purposes of Title II
benefits. Because the NH was domiciled in Antigua and Barbuda and outside of the United
States when he died, the agency applies the law of the District of Columbia to determine
marital status between the NH and the Claimant for Title II benefits. See
42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(1)(A). First, we consider whether District of Columbia courts would
find the couple to be validly married. See 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(1)(A)(i). The District of Columbia follows the general rule that
the validity of a marriage is determined by the law of the jurisdiction where the
marriage occurred. Here, there is no evidence of a valid marriage under Antigua and
Barbuda’s laws. The Claimant indicated that she and the NH had a common-law marriage
beginning in 1998, but Antigua and Barbuda does not recognize common-law marriages
under its laws. Thus, applying Antigua and Barbuda’s laws, we believe District of
Columbia courts would find that the NH and the Claimant were not validly married at
the time of his death. Next, we consider whether District of Columbia courts would
find that the Claimant could inherit a spouse’s share under intestate succession law.
See 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(1)(A)(ii). The District of Columbia follows the general conflict
of law rule that the law of the decedent’s domicile determines intestate inheritance
rights. The NH was domiciled in Antigua and Barbuda at the time of his death. Although
the NH and the Claimant cohabited for many years, cohabitation does not confer the
right to inheritance as a legal heir, including as a surviving spouse, under Antigua
and Barbuda’s inheritance laws. Thus, applying Antigua and Barbuda’s laws, we believe
District of Columbia courts would find that the Claimant could not inherit a spouse’s
share from the NH under intestate succession law based on their cohabitation. Accordingly,
we believe there is legal support for the agency to find that the Claimant is not
the NH’s widow(er) for purposes of Title II benefits on the NH’s record.
BACKGROUND
The NH died September 20, 2024, domiciled in Antigua and Barbuda. The Claimant filed
an application for surviving spouse’s benefits and the LSDP on the NH’s record alleging
that she is the NH’s widow(er). It is our understanding that the Claimant does not
allege and has not presented evidence of a civil marriage under Antigua and Barbuda’s
laws; [2] rather, she has described their relationship in Antigua and Barbuda using the terms
“liv[ing] together continuously as married couple,” “agreed to be in a committed relationship,
to live as husband and wife,” and “permanent lifelong commitment.” [3] She has alleged that their relationship began in 1998 and continued until the NH’s
death in 2024. They lived together only in Antigua and Barbuda. She provided some
documents and statements to support her claim.
On January 14, 2025, the Claimant filed a claim for survivor’s benefits on the NH’s
record. In the Form SSA-754 Statement of Marital Relationship completed in March 2025,
the Claimant alleges that she and the NH began living together as husband and wife
in Antigua and Barbuda in August 1998, though they did not officially marry. They
lived together continuously in Antigua and Barbuda from August 1998, until the NH’s
death on September 20, 2024. During that time, the couple had a child together, co-owned
property, and maintained a joint bank account. They introduced one another as “my
husband/wife and partner” or “father/mother of my child.”
There are three witness statements on the Form SSA-753, Statement Regarding Marriage,
completed by friends and relatives who reported that the NH and the Claimant were
generally known as a married couple and lived together in Antigua and Barbuda from
1998 until the NH’s death in September 2024.
ANALYSIS
A. Federal Law: Status as a Widow(er) for Entitlement to Widow(er)’s Insurance
Benefits and the LSDP [4]
Under Title II of the Act, a claimant may be entitled to widow(er)’s insurance benefits
on a deceased insured individual’s account if, among other requirements, the claimant
is the widow(er) of the insured individual and their marriage relationship lasted
at least nine months before the insured individual died. [5] See 42 U.S.C. §§ 402(e), (f), 416(a)(2), (c), (g); 20 C.F.R. § 404.335. To be entitled
to the LSDP under Title II of the Act, a claimant must establish that the claimant
is the widow(er) of an individual who died fully or currently insured, and the claimant
was living in the same household as the insured at the time of the insured individual’s
death. [6] See 42 U.S.C. § 402(i); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.390, 404.391.
As pertinent here, section 216(h)(1)(A) of the Act provides two methods for a claimant
to show status as a widow(er) of an insured who was domiciled outside the United States.
[7] First, a claimant is the widow(er) of the insured if the courts of the District of
Columbia would find that the claimant was validly married to the insured at the time
the insured died. 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(1)(A)(i); 20 C.F.R. § 404.345. Second, if the
claimant was not validly married to NH at the time the NH died, the claimant will
be deemed to be the insured’s widow(er) if, under the law applied by the courts of
the District of Columbia in determining the devolution of intestate personal property,
the claimant would have the “same status” as a widow(er) of the insured with respect
to the taking of such property. 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(1)(A)(ii); 20 C.F.R. § 404.345.
In this case, the NH was domiciled in Antigua and Barbuda when he died. Therefore,
the Claimant’s status as the NH’s widow(er) will be evaluated under the laws of the
District of Columbia.
B. District of Columbia Law: Valid Marriage or Inheritance of a Spouse’s Share
under Intestate Succession Law
-
1. District of Columbia Courts Would Find that the Claimant and the NH Were
Not Validly Married under Antigua and Barbuda’s Laws
The District of Columbia follows the general rule that the validity of the marriage
is determined by the law of the jurisdiction where the marriage occurred. See Gill
v. Nostrand, 206 A.3d 869, 875 n. 4 (D.C. 2019) (recognizing a “ceremonial marriage
in Brazil as a matter of comity”); Cerovic v. Stojkov, 134 A.3d 766, 778 (D.C. 2016)
(in a divorce action, applying Serbian law to determine marital status for purposes
of equitable distribution of marital property under D.C. law); Bansda v. Wheeler,
995 A.2d 189, 198 (D.C. 2010) (in a divorce action, applying Dutch law to determine
marital status for purposes of equitable distribution of marital property under D.C.
law); see also McConnell v. McConnell, 99 F. Supp. 493, 494 (D.D.C. 1951) (in an annulment
action for a marriage contracted in Virginia, applying Virginia law); Hitchens v.
Hitchens, 47 F. Supp. 73 (D.D.C. 1942) (in an annulment action for a marriage contracted
in Maryland, applying Maryland law). Here, the NH died domiciled in Antigua and Barbuda
in September 2024. The Claimant alleges a common-law marriage in Antigua and Barbuda
that began in 1998 and ended with the NH’s death in 2024. They have only lived together
in Antigua and Barbuda. We must determine whether District of Columbia courts would
find that the Claimant had a valid marriage with the NH.
Although the Claimant alleges that she and the NH had a common-law marriage, Antigua
and Barbuda does not recognize common-law marriage under its laws.[8]
Therefore, we believe that District of Columbia courts would find that the Claimant
has not established a valid marriage with the NH under Antigua and Barbuda’s laws.
Thus, there is legal support for the agency to find that the Claimant is not the NH’s
widow(er) under section 216(h)(1)(A)(i) for Title II benefits. See 42 U.S.C § 416(h)(1)(A)(i);
20 C.F.R. § 404.345. Because the Claimant was not validly married to the NH, the next
question is whether the Claimant could inherit a spouse’s share from the NH under
District of Columbia intestate succession law. See 42 U.S.C § 416(h)(1)(A)(ii); 20
C.F.R. § 404.345.
-
2. District of Columbia Courts Would Find that the Claimant Could Not Inherit
a Spouse’s Share from the NH under Antigua and Barbuda’s Laws
The District of Columbia follows the general conflict of law rule that the law of
the decedent’s domicile determines intestate inheritance rights. See Javier v. Comm’r
of Soc. Sec., 407 F.3d 1244, 1247 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (citing In re Gray’s Estate, 168
F. Supp. 124, 126 (D.D.C. 1958) (in deciding whether Maryland law, where the adoption
occurred, or District of Columbia law, where the decedent was domiciled when she died,
applied for purposes of determining the right of an adopted child to inherit, the
court noted that the general rule is that “the law of the domicile of decedent governs
distribution of personal property and the law of the situs of real estate governs
its descent”)); Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 260 Intestate Succession
to Movables (March 2023 Update). As the NH’s domicile at the time of death was Antigua
and Barbuda, we consider whether the Claimant has established a relationship with
the NH under the law of Antigua and Barbuda that would afford the Claimant the right
to inherit a spouse’s share under Antigua and Barbuda’s intestate succession laws.
Antigua and Barbuda’s Intestates Estates Act governs the distribution of intestate
estates in that country, including specifying the share of the deceased’s “husband”
or “wife.”[9] That statute does not appear to expressly define husband or wife. However, court
decisions in that jurisdiction have held that even someone who cohabited with the
deceased for over twenty years as “man and wife” was not entitled to inherit property
held solely in the deceased’s name, and that when a cohabiting couple breaks up, interest
in contested property is determined not by any inherent rights but by an agreement,
if any, between the parties. [10] Thus, cohabitation alone does not appear to create any entitlement to intestate inheritance
rights or to establish someone as the husband or wife of a deceased individual.
Therefore, we believe that District of Columbia courts would find that the Claimant
has not established the right to inherit a spouse’s share from the NH under Antigua
and Barbuda’s laws. Thus, there is legal support for the agency to find that the Claimant
is not the NH’s widow(er) under section 216(h)(1)(A)(ii) for Title II benefits. See
42 U.S.C § 416(h)(1)(A)(ii); 20 C.F.R. § 404.345.
CONCLUSION
Applying section 216(h)(1)(A) of the Act, we believe District of Columbia courts would
find that the Claimant and the NH were not validly married under Antigua and Barbuda’s
laws and that the Claimant does not have the right to inherit a spouse’s share under
Antigua and Barbuda’s intestate succession laws. Accordingly, we believe there is
legal support for the agency to find that the Claimant is not the NH’s widow(er) for
Title II benefits on the NH’s record.