QUESTION PRESENTED
Can the agency deem the claimant to be the widow of the NH for widow's Title II benefits
if they lived in a de facto union for several years in Costa Rica?[1]
Opinion
Costa Rica recognizes de facto unions. However, under Costa Rican law, a de facto
union does not confer upon the surviving member of that union the same intestate succession
rights as marriage confers upon a widow. Accordingly, even if the claimant can establish
that she was in a de facto union with the NH, the agency cannot deem the claimant
the NH’s widow for Title II purposes.[2]
BACKGROUND
The claimant and the NH lived as a couple in Costa Rica, beginning in May 2008. They
married in November 2013. The NH died in June 2014. In January 2016, the claimant
applied for benefits on the NH's record.
ANALYSIS[3]
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 and that she was married
to the insured for a period of nine months. 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.[4] 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 for at least nine
months at the time the insured died. 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(c)(1), 416(h)(1)(A)(i); 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.345. Second, if the claimant was not validly married to such insured for at
least nine months 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.
The claimant and NH were validly married, but the marriage did not meet the
nine-month durational requirement.
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).
Here, the claimant and NH were legally married in Costa Rica on November 25, 2013.
However, the NH died on June 27, 2014. Because the marriage did not last at least
nine months before the insured died, the claimant is not entitled to Title II widow’s
benefits on the record of the NH based on the November 2013 marriage. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(c), (g); 20 C.F.R. § 404.335.
The claimant does not have the same status as a widow of the NH under the intestacy
law of Costa Rica.
Since the claimant was not married to the NH for at least nine months, the agency
can 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.[5]
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 Costa Rica at the time of his death. At issue is whether
a de facto union existed between the claimant and NH that, if established, would confer
upon the claimant the same intestate succession rights that a widow would have.
Costa Rica has recognized de facto unions since at least 1995[6] . However, under Costa Rican law, a de facto union does not confer upon a surviving
partner intestate succession rights identical to those that a widow would have. “For
example, under intestate succession, a partner in a de facto union will have the right
to inherit only the property acquired during the existence of the union, unlike the
spouse in a ceremonial marriage.”[7] Thus, a surviving partner of a de facto union does not have the “same status” as
a widow of the NH with respect to taking such property.[8]
Accordingly, the agency cannot deem the partner in a de facto union a widow for the
purposes of establishing entitlement to benefits under Title II of the Act. It is
therefore irrelevant whether the evidence submitted by the claimant establishes the
existence of a de facto union under Costa Rican law.
CONCLUSION
The claimant and the NH's marriage did not meet the nine-month duration requirement.
Additionally, even if the claimant and the NH were in a de facto union, such a relationship
would not confer upon the claimant the same intestate succession rights as the widow
of the NH, under the law of Costa Rica.