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.