TN 17 (11-23)

PR 03130.090 Costa Rica

A. PR 23-022 Validity of De Facto Union Under the Law of Costa Rica (DEATH CASE)

Date: May 23, 2017

1. Syllabus

The claimant and the NH lived together beginning in 2008, in Costa Rica. They married in November 2013 and the NH died in June 2014. At issue is whether the agency can deem the claimant to be the widow of the NH, for Title II purposes.

2. Opinion

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.

B. PR 80-003 Marriage - Cohabitation And Reputation (Including Common-Law Marriage) - Costa Rica

DATE: February 26, 1980

1. SYLLABUS

The laws of Costa Rica from 1973 to 1978 do not recognize a common-law marriage. (P~, Claude R. —GC (A~) to SSA 2/26/80)

2. OPINION

In your memorandum, you ask for our comments and opinion on 3 questions which depend on whether the laws of Costa Rica recognize a common-law marriage.

You ask the following questions:

1. Is common-law marriage recognized by the laws of Costa Rica?

2. If common-law marriage is recognized, what are the requirements according to Costa Rican Law?

3. If Costa Rica does recognize common-law relationships, what effect does the death of Elizabeth V after the date that the original marriage agreement was entered into, have upon a finding that a valid relationship existed?

Under the laws of Costa Rica from 1973 to 1978, a common-law marriage is not recognized. The Civil Code does not refer to common-law marriage as a legal institution. Also, it does not acknowledge any legal effect to this kind of relationship. In C.R.R. v. Suc, E.B.O., Chamber of Cessation, Judgment of June 27, 1973, the Supreme Court of Costa Rica ruled on this issue. The court stated that recognition of “any rights or legal situations as arising from a common law marital relationship would simply imply disavowal of the legal provisions that consider marriage as the essential basis of the family and a foundation of society.” Finally, the current Family Code, enacted by Law 5476 of November 7, 1973, also does not recognize a common-law marriage.

We expect that the above discussion on the laws of Costa Rica answers your three questions adequately.

 


Footnotes:

[1]

You asked if courts in the District of Columbia would recognize the validity of a common law marriage between the claimant and NH and if such a marriage would allow the claimant to be entitled to Title II benefits on the record of the deceased NH. Because Costa Rica is not a common law country, the term “common law marriage” is not used there. Instead, Costa Rica recognizes a de facto union.

[2]

Because the existence of a de facto union under Costa Rican law is not relevant to the issue of whether the claimant can be entitled to benefits on the earnings record of the NH, this opinion does not address whether the evidence gathered by the agency establishes the existence of a de facto union under Costa Rican law.

[3]

Our discussion of the law of Costa Rica is based on information we received from the Law Library of Congress. See Norma C. Gutierrez, Report for the U.S. Social Security Administration, Costa Rica: De Facto Unions, LL File No. 2017-014718 (April 2017) (Law Library of Congress Report).

[4]

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.

[5]

Though the regulatory language is slightly different than the statutory language, it should not be interpreted to provide a more expansive definition of who can be deemed a spouse or widow(er) than the statute for two reasons. First, in 1978 the regulatory language closely tracked that of the statute, see 20 C.F.R. 404.1101(a) (1978). When SSA revised the regulation in 1979 with the language used today, it explained that its intent was merely to simplify and clarify the text, not to introduce a substantive change in the definition of who could be deemed a spouse or widow(er). 43 Fed. Reg. 52936 (1978). Second, if the regulation were interpreted to be more expansive than the statute, it would impermissibly conflict with the statute, and therefore be invalid. See Food and Drug Admin. v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 125 (2000) (“Regardless of how serious the problem an administrative agency seeks to address, however, it may not exercise its authority ‘in a manner that is inconsistent with the administrative structure that Congress enacted into law.’”); GHS Health Maint. Org., Inc. v. United States, 536 F.3d 1293, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“When a regulation directly contradicts a statute, the regulation must yield.”).

[6]

Law Library of Congress Report, at 1 (citing CÓDIGO DE FAMILIA, Ley No. 5476, Dec. 21, 1973, LA GACETA [L.G.] Feb. 5, 1974, availableas amended, http://www.pgrweb.go.cr/scij/Busqueda/Normativa/Normas/nrm_texto_completo.aspx?param1=NRTC&nValor1=1&nValor2=970&strTipM=TC, archived at https://perma.cc/F2RV-TC7R).

[7]

Law Library of Congress Report, at 2.

[8]

Id. at 2 (citing CÓDIGO CIVIL, Ley No. 63, art. 572(1)(ch), Sept. 28, 1887, available as amended at http://www.pgrweb.go.cr/scij/Busqueda/Normativa/Normas/nrm_articulo.aspx?param1=NRA&nValor1=1&nValor2=15437&nValor3=90115&nValor5=89467, archived at https://perma.cc/RVS6-R64M.


To Link to this section - Use this URL:
http://policy.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/1503130090
PR 03130.090 - Costa Rica - 11/16/2023
Batch run: 11/20/2023
Rev:11/16/2023