We believe there is not sufficient evidence to determine that claimant and NH were
validly married or may be deemed married. Accordingly, the agency could not find that
claimant is NH’s widow or deemed widow for the purpose of Title II benefits under
the Act.
BACKGROUND
Claimant filed a claim for widow’s benefits under Title II on the record of NH. In
her SSA-754, claimant alleges a ceremonial marriage was performed, however there is
no evidence to support this statement. Claimant alleges she and NH lived together,
as husband and wife, from September 2002 until NH’s death on January XX, 2019, except
for a nine-month span from September 2002 until June 2003 when NH was on active duty.
In support of her application, claimant has statements from her family members as
well as NH’s family members. These statements are consistent that claimant and NH
lived together and presented themselves as husband and wife for a period of 17 years.
The statements also indicate that both claimant and NH were previously married, with
claimant’s marriage ending in divorce and NH’s marriage ending in the death of the
spouse in January 2019.
Claimant submitted a Certification from the Casa de Justicia Comunitaria de Paz de
Rufina Alfaro, the community court in the township where she and NH lived. This certification
dated August XX, 2019, states that the claimant and NH maintained the relationship
of a couple and resided like a married couple from August 2002 until January 2019.
ANALYSIS[1]
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 things,[2] the claimant is the widow(er) of the insured individual and their marriage lasted
at least nine months as of the day before the insured individual died. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 402(e)(1), (f)(1), 416(a)(2), (c), (g); 20 C.F.R. § 404.335; Program
Operations Manual System (POMS) GN 00305.100. Under Title II of the Act, the lump sum death payment (LSDP)[3] which is a one-time payment of $255, may be paid to a deceased insured individual’s
widow(er) who was living in the same household with the insured at the time of his
death.[4] See 42 U.S.C. § 402(i); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.390, 404.391.
As pertinent here, the Act provides two methods for a claimant to show he or she is
the widow(er) of an insured who was domiciled outside the United States.[5] First, a claimant is the widow(er) 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 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 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 Panama when he died. Therefore, the claimant’s
status will be evaluated under the laws of the District of Columbia. See,
Footnote 5, supra.
Claimant and the NH were not married under Panamanian Law.
Under the law of the District of Columbia, the validity of the marriage is determined
by the law of the jurisdiction where the marriage occurred. See Bansda v.
Wheeler,995 A.2d 189, 198 (D.C. Cir. 2010); 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). In this situation, the claimant alleges the marriage
took place in Panama, so we examine Panamanian marriage laws.
Here, the claimant alleges in her application that she was married to the NH, however
she provided no marriage certificate. Instead, she provided a Certification from the
community court in the township where she and NH lived. That certification stated
the claimant and NH had maintained a relationship and lived together as husband and
wife at the same address from 2002 until January 2019. Claimant also provided statements
from others that indicated she and NH introduced each other as husband and wife and
lived together for a period of 17 years. It appears claimant has provided evidence
that might be required to support a common law marriage. However, Panama has a civil
law system so does not have “common law” marriage, though they do have a similar concept
called a union or marriage in fact. The Constitution of Panama provides that couples
meeting certain conditions will be considered to have the same rights and privileges
as those who participate in a civil marriage[6] . Therefore, the District of Columbia would not recognize the couple were validly
married, and claimant is not entitled to Title II widow’s benefits or the LSDP on
the record of the NH based on a valid marriage.
Claimant is not eligible to inherit spouse’s share of NH’s estate under
Panamanian intestacy laws.
Since the claimant was not legally married to the NH, we next must examine whether
she has the same rights as a wife to share in the distribution of the NH’s intestate
personal property under the laws of the State of the NH’s domicile at the time of
filing. POMS RS 00202.001.A.1; 42 U.S.C. § 402(b); 42 U.S.C. § 416(b); 20 C.F.R. § 404.330(a). 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)).
To inherit the spouse’s share, the survivor must be the legally recognized spouse,
either under the traditional marriage or as a marriage in fact. See, Codigo Civil de la Republica, Capitulo VII, De la sucesion del conyuge, arts. 685-691,
https://www.organojudicial.gob.pa/uploads/wp_repo/blogs.dir/cendoj/CIVIL/codigo_civil.pdf. To be eligible for spousal rights and privileges, such as a spousal share of an
estate, the Panama Family Code requires proof of the valid marriage. 2019 LOC Opinion
(Citing Codigo de la Familia, art. 74). See also, Jacinto Javier Espinosa González,
Trasmisión Patrimonial Mortis Causa-Régimen Jurídico Sucesorio, primera parte, 31 (2014), https://perma.cc/P8L4-RYAR). This proof is either a copy of the registration or a declaration from a court of
competent jurisdiction. Id.
One of the requirements for a union in fact to be recognized is a joint request for
the registration of in the Civil Registry. Id. If a relationship is not registered, it may still be proved for purposes of establishing
rights derived from a marriage by one party filing a lawsuit against the other.[7]
The evidence supplied in this matter does not include a copy of the Civil Registry
of Panama to prove registration of the union in fact. While there is a Certification
from a municipal judge where claimant and NH resided, authority for a determination
lies with the Family Court in Panama, and not with local municipal court.[8] Therefore, we believe the D.C. Court would find claimant does not have a marital
relationship with NH under Panamanian Law.
Claimant here does not have any valid proof of either a traditional marriage or marriage
in fact. As a result, she is not eligible for a spouse’s share under the Panamanian
laws of intestacy.
A Panamanian court of competent jurisdiction could find a legal relationship
based on the evidence submitted by claimant.
Under Panama’s Family Code, a marriage in fact is proved by testimony of at least
three witnesses with direct knowledge of the existence of the relationship. Those
witnesses must testify regarding the singularity and stability of the relationship.
Singularity means the union exists between one man and one woman. Stability means
it is constant, durable, and permanent. Id. arts. 54, 796, 797, 798. In addition, both parties must have legal capacity to marry
and have maintained the relationship during five consecutive years.[9]
The claimant provided SSA-753 statements from four individuals (a niece and three
cousins representing families of both claimant and NH) with knowledge of the relationship.
Each statement indicated a 17-year relationship that ended with NH’s death. The statements
are consistent that the claimant and NH lived together continuously and referred to
each other as husband and wife for the duration of the 17-year relationship.
For the D.C. courts to find claimant eligible for spousal benefits under the Act,
claimant would have to file in the appropriate court in Panama to obtain a declaration
of union in fact. Such a claim may be filed after the death of one of the parties.[10]
CONCLUSION
We believe that the courts of the District of Columbia would find that claimant has
not submitted sufficient proof of a valid marriage or union in fact under Panamanian
law... Accordingly, we believe that there is insufficient evidence for the agency
to find the claimant is NH’s widow or deemed widow for purposes of Title II benefits.