TN 16 (11-23)

PR 03130.080 Chile

 

A. PR 22-059 Validity of Common-Law Marriage under the law of Valparaiso, Chile-DEATH CASE

DATE February 28, 2017

1. SYLLABUS

The claimant and NH lived together in Chile, from 1994 to 2015. The NH died in 2015 and the claimant applied for widow's benefits on the NH's record.

2. OPINION

Issue

The claimant claimed to be the widow of the NH. They lived in a non-marital relationship for several years in Chile.

Short Answer

No, the claimant is not entitled to widow's benefits on the NH's record. The claimant's relationship with the NH would not be recognized as a valid marriage, and the claimant does not possess the same intestate succession rights as a widow of the NH under the law of Chile. Thus, the couple was not married, for Title II purposes.

Factual Background

The claimant and NH began living together as husband and wife in Chile in November 1994. The NH was still legally married to a different woman, who died in 2005. The claimant and NH had a son in October 2004. The NH died in December 2015 and, in February 2016, the claimant applied for widow's benefits on the NH's record.

Analysis[1]

a. Federal Law

To be entitled to widow’s insurance benefits under the Act, a claimant must show, among other things, that she is the “widow” of an insured. 42 U.S.C. § 402(e)(1). As pertinent here, the Act provides two methods for a claimant to show she is the widow of an insured who was domiciled outside the United States.[2] First, a claimant is the widow of such 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 such insured at the time the insured died, the claimant will be deemed to be the insured’s widow 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 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.

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.[3] 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).

Here, the claimant and the NH lived as husband and wife, but there is no indication that they entered into a ceremonial marriage. Therefore, the claimant is not entitled to Title II widow’s benefits on the record of the NH, based on a valid marriage to the NH.

b. The claimant does not have the same status as a widow of the NH under the Intestacy Law of Chile

Since the claimant was not married to the NH, the agency will deem the claimant to be the NH’s widow 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 widow of the NH with respect to the taking of such property. 42 U.S.C § 416(h)(1)(A)(ii); 20 C.F.R. § 404.345.

Under District of Columbia law, the law of the decedent’s domicile determines intestate inheritance rights. 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 was domiciled in Chile at the time of death. Chile, a civil law country, does not recognize common-law marriage. Instead, a partnership where two people live together in a permanent relationship as husband and wife is considered a de facto union pursuant to Law 20830.[4] In order for a civil union to be legally recognized, the partners who share a life together in a permanent and stable relationship must freely enter into an agreement on civil union (ACU) before the officer of the Civil Registry and Identification, which is later recorded in the special Registry on Civil Unions.[5] Partners to de facto unions are entitled to inherit property intestate, similar to a surviving spouse.[6]

In the instant case, the NH and claimant lived as a married couple beginning in November 1994, but the NH was still legally married until 2005 when his wife passed away. The couple had a child together and life insurance documents show that claimant was made the beneficiary on the NH’s policies. In December 2015, the NH passed away. Although the claimant and NH lived together as a couple, there is no indication that they entered into an ACU. Since there does not appear to be a signed and registered ACU, the claimant and NH’s long term relationship would not be recognized as a de facto union pursuant to Law 20830. Accordingly, the claimant cannot inherit like a spouse and therefore does not have the same status as a widow of the NH.

Conclusion

The claimant’s relationship with the NH would not be recognized as a valid marriage, and the claimant does not possess the same intestate succession rights as a widow of the NH under the law of Chile. Thus, the agency cannot deem the couple married for title II purposes.


Footnotes:

[1]

Our discussion of the law of Chile is based in part on information we received from the Library of Congress.

[2]

In determining the claimant’s relationship as the insured’s spouse, the agency looks to the law of the state where the insured had a permanent home at the time the claimant applied for benefits. See 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(1)(A)(i). If the insured was not domiciled in any state, the agency applies the law of the District of Columbia. See 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(1)(A)(i); 20 C.F.R. § 404.345; POMS GN 00210.006(B)(2).a.

[3]

The only exception is when the marriage is in violation of strong public policy of the District of Columbia. Hitchens v. Hitchens, 47 F. Supp. 73, 74 (D.D.C. 1942). The recognition of heterosexual unions performed in other jurisdictions does not appear to violate a strong public policy of the District.

[4]

Ley 19947 arts. 4–9, DIARIO OFICIAL [D.O.], May 17, 2004, https://www.leychile.cl/Navegar?idNorma=225128 archived at https://perma.cc/R2AB-PMJV; CARLOS GARRIDO CHACANA, ACUERDO DE UNIÓN CIVIL, ANÁLISIS DE LEY 220830 at 25–26 (Santiago, 2015); and Ley 20830 Crea el Acuerdo de Unión Civil, D.O., Apr. 21, 2015, http://www.leychile.cl/Navegar?idNorma= 1075210, archived at https://perma.cc/AZV7-3L9N.

[5]

Ley 20830 arts. 1, 5, 6.

[6]

Ley 20830 arts. 16 Crea el Acuerdo de Unión Civil, D.O., Apr. 21, 2015, http://www.leychile.cl/Navegar?idNorma= 1075210, archived at https://perma.cc/AZV7-3L9N; and Susan Turner Saelzer, La Unión de Hecho como Institución del Derecho de Familia y su Régimen de Efectos Personales, 16(1) REVISTA IUS ET PRAXIS 85, 85–87 (Universidad de Talca, Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales, 2010), http://www.scielo.cl/pdf/iusetp/v16n1/art04.pdf, archived at https://perma.cc/36E5-WPLM.


To Link to this section - Use this URL:
http://policy.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/1503130080
PR 03130.080 - Chile - 11/16/2023
Batch run: 11/16/2023
Rev:11/16/2023