TN 15 (08-20)

PR 05110.048 Texas

A. 20-066 Texas Law Rebuttal of Presumption of Validity of Last Marriage for Alleged Common Law Marriage

Date: June 30, 2020

1. Syllabus

The number holder (NH) died while domiciled in Texas. We look to the Texas law to determine if the NH and Claimant had a valid marriage at the time of his death. Based on the evidence provided, we believe that a Texas court would find that the Claimant has proven that she and the NH entered into a common-law marriage in September 1980 and that she was validly married to the NH at the time of the NH’s death in September 2002. Therefore, we believe there is legal support for the Agency to find that the Claimant is the NH’s widow for purposes of her application for widow’s insurance benefits on the NH’s record.

2. Opinion

QUESTION PRESENTED

In light of evidence regarding the deceased number holder J~ (NH’s) marriages to both L~ and T~, you asked whether the Claimant or T~ validly married to the NH under Texas law at the time of his death in September 2002 for purposes of determining the Claimant’s entitlement to widow’s insurance benefits on the NH’s record as his widow[1] under Title II of the Social Security Act (Act).

ANSWER

We believe that a Texas court would find that the Claimant and the NH entered into a common-law marriage in September 1980 and were validly married at the time of the NH’s death in September 2002. Therefore, we believe there is legal support for the Social Security Administration (SSA or agency) to find that the Claimant is the NH’s widow for purposes of her application for widow’s insurance benefits on the NH’s record.

BACKGROUND

The NH died on September XX, 2002, while domiciled in Texas. On October XX, 2018, the Claimant filed an application for widow’s insurance benefits alleging that she and the NH entered into a common-law marriage on September xx, 1980, in Houston, Texas that continued until the NH’s death. There is evidence indicating that the NH had a prior marriage with T~ in 1975 before his marriage to the Claimant in 1980. Below, we identify the evidence related to their purported marriages to the NH.

Evidence from the NH Before his Death in September 2002

In his December XX 1996 application for Social Security retirement benefits, the NH stated that he married the Claimant in 1980 in Houston, Texas and had six children.[2] The agency awarded the NH benefits. In 1997, five of the NH’s children applied for child’s insurance benefits on the NH’s record. In November 1998, the NH’s sixth child filed for child’s benefits on his record. The agency awarded benefits to all six children as the natural, legitimate children of the NH. The Claimant, as their mother, served as representative payee for all six children.[3]

The NH’s Purported Marriage to the Claimant in 1980

Following the NH’s death, you advised that on September XX, 2002, the Claimant filed an application for mother’s benefits as the NH’s widow with the NH’s children in her care who were entitled to benefits on his record. In the application, the Claimant stated she and the NH had a common-law marriage beginning September XX, 1980. The Claimant requested to withdraw this application because additional benefits were not payable due to the family maximum, and the agency denied this application.

Years later, as noted, on October XX, 2018, the Claimant filed an application for widow’s benefits on the NH’s record as his widow again alleging that she and the NH entered into a common-law marriage on September XX, 1980, in Houston, Texas, which lasted until his death in September 2002.

In support of her recent application, in November 2018, the agency obtained a statement from the Claimant in the Form SSA-754, Statement of Marital Relationship, as follows:

  • The Claimant alleged that she and the NH started living as husband and wife in September 1980 in Houston, Texas. The Claimant stated that they lived together continuously since September 1980 until the NH’s death in 2002. The Claimant stated that they lived in Houston, Texas, from September 1980 to March 1981; in Tyler, Texas, from March 1981 to November 1989; and in Woodbridge, Virginia, from 1989 until 2002. The Claimant stated that she and the NH had an understanding when they began living together that they were “married under God till death do us part.” She said this understanding changed when the NH got sick in 2002 and he moved back to Texas by himself to be cared for by his daughter. The Claimant stated that she and the NH did not have an agreement that a ceremonial marriage would be performed in the future. She stated that she believed that living together with the NH made them legally married. The Claimant and the NH had six children together. They had four children born while they were living in Texas: G~ in 1981, B~ in 1984, P~ in 1987, and J~ in 1988. The NH and the Claimant had two more children born while they were living in Virginia: D~ in 1991 and J~ in 1995. The Claimant stated that after she and the NH started living together, she was known as L~ . She also stated that she and the NH introduced each other as husband and wife to relatives, friends, neighbors, and business acquaintances. The Claimant alleged that she and the NH were listed as husband and wife in an IRS document from 1980 and a home loan document from 1995, but that these documents were destroyed in a fire. The Claimant stated that mail was sent to her with the name of Mrs. L~.

The agency obtained two statements from the Claimant in the Form SSA-795, Statement of Claimant or Other Person. The Claimant provided her first statement in the Form SSA-795 dated April X, 2019, in response to the agency’s questions regarding where the NH was living at the time of his death, as follows:

  • The Claimant stated she was the NH’s wife, and that the NH was living with his daughter, K~, and was in hospice at the time of his death. The Claimant stated that the NH moved to Tyler, Texas to be his permanent home. The Claimant stated she believed that the NH’s death certificate listed the NH’s marital status as divorced with no surviving spouse because Ms. W~, the NH’s daughter and the informant for the death certificate, was not happy that the Claimant could not care for the NH in Virginia when he became sick.

The Claimant provided a second statement in the Form SSA-795 (which is undated, but the agency received it on April XX, 2020), as follows:

  • In response to statements by the NH’s daughter K~ about a marriage between the NH and T~ (detailed below), the Claimant was asked questions about this possible marriage. The Claimant stated she was not aware of the NH’s marriage to T~, and left blank the portions of the form asking her to provide information about the marriage of T~ and the NH. She stated that she met the NH in June 1980 and that they began dating and went to church together. She stated that on September XX, 1980, she and the NH were married in a common-law marriage with a small group of friends present. She stated that she and the NH lived in Houston, Texas, and T~, Texas, until 1989. In September 1989, the NH moved to Virginia for a job. In October 1989, the Claimant and the children joined the NH in and lived in Woodbridge, Virginia, where the Claimant and the NH later bought a house using the NH’s VA loan. The Claimant stated that the NH retired in 1997 because he was sick with emphysema. The Claimant stated that the NH became very mean and was moved out of their house by the police, and the NH lived by himself in an apartment in Woodbridge, Virginia. The NH later moved back to Tyler, Texas, to live with his oldest daughter, K~. The Claimant stated that their children called and wrote to the NH on a daily basis. The Claimant stated that on September XX, 2001, she took her children down to Texas to see the NH. The NH continued to live with Ms. W~ for about a year until he was placed back in hospice. The Claimant stated that Ms. W~ did not tell her that the NH was back in hospice or that the NH had died in 2002. The Claimant believed that Ms. W~ did not tell her because she was mad at her for not caring the NH when he became ill in Virginia.

The agency also obtained three additional witness statements on the Form SSA-753 Statement Regarding Marriage from the Claimant’s brother and from two of the Claimant’s and the NH’s children:

  • On November XX, 2018, T~, the Claimant’s brother, completed the SSA Form 753 Statement Regarding Marriage. Mr. S~ identified the NH as his brother-in-law and stated that he considered the Claimant and the NH to be husband and wife. Mr. S~ stated that he knew the NH for 28 years and that he would see the NH at family gatherings at least once a year. Mr. S~ stated that the NH and the Claimant were generally known as husband and wife. In addition, Mr. S~ stated that the Claimant and the NH were married, had six children, and lived together since 1980. He stated that the Claimant and the NH came to family gatherings together and “were always very open about being married.” Mr. S~also stated that he heard the Claimant and the NH refer to each other as husband and wife every time he saw them, which was at least once a year. He also stated that the Claimant and the NH maintained a home and lived together as husband and wife in Tyler, Texas, from 1980 to 1990, and in Prince William County, Virginia, from 1990 to 1997. Mr. S~ stated that the Claimant and the NH lived together continuously from 1980 to 1997.

  • On November X, 2018, P~, the Claimant’s and the NH’s daughter, completed SSA Form-753 Statement Regarding Marriage. P~ stated that the Claimant and the NH were her parents and that they lived together until her father’s death in 2002. She also stated that he heard the Claimant and the NH refer to each other as husband and wife. She believed them to be husband and wife, and they were generally known as husband and wife. She also stated that the Claimant and the NH maintained a home and lived together as husband and wife in Tyler, Texas, from 1980 to 1990, and in Prince William County, Virginia, from 1990 to 1997. P~ further stated that the Claimant and the NH lived together from 1980 to 2002, but that the last six months of the NH’s life, they did not live together because the NH returned to Texas.

  • On November XX, 2018, B~, the Claimant’s and the NH’s daughter, completed SSA Form 753 Statement Regarding Marriage. She stated that the Claimant and the NH were generally known as husband and wife. Ms. D~ said she believed the NH and the Claimant to be husband and wife, and that they referred to each other as husband and wife all the time. She also stated that the Claimant and the NH maintained a home and lived together continuously as husband and wife in Tyler, Texas, from 1980 to 1990, and in Prince William County, Virginia, from 1990 to 2002.

The agency also obtained two statements from the NH’s daughter, K~ (also referred to as K~) W~, in Form SSA-795 Statement of Claimant or Other Person, as follows:

  • On April XX, 2019, Ms. W~ completed the Form SSA-795 Statement of Claimant or Other Person. She stated the NH was living in Tyler, Texas, at the time of his death, and that the NH considered Tyler, Texas, to be his permanent home. Ms. W~ stated that at the time of the NH’s death, he was married to the Claimant, who was living with in Virginia with her and the NH’s children. Ms. W~ stated that the NH’s most recent marriage was to the Claimant, but she said the NH and the Claimant did not have a formal marriage. Ms. W~ stated that the NH and the Claimant lived together from 1980 to 1997, first in Texas and then in Virginia. Ms. W~also stated, “I never was sure his divorce from his 3rd wife T~ was finalized.”

  • On April XX, 2020, K~ completed a second Form SSA-795 Statement of Claimant or Other Person in response to the agency’s specific questions about the possible marriage and divorce between the NH and T~. She stated that the NH and T~ were married about 1975 in Houston, Texas, in front of a justice of the peace. Ms. W~ said she did not know about a divorce between the NH and T~ Ms. W~ stated she thought that the NH got divorce paperwork from T~, but Ms. W~ did not know what happened with it. Contrary to her earlier statement, Ms. W~ now stated that as far as she knew, there was no marriage between the NH and the Claimant, but the NH and the Claimant lived together for 17 years. Ms. W~said the NH and the Claimant separated around 1996 to 1997. Ms. W~ stated she did not know if there was a divorce between the NH and the Claimant.

The NH’s Texas death certificate reflects that the NH was divorced with no surviving spouse, but it does not specify from whom the NH was divorced. Ms. W~, his daughter, was the informant for the death certificate information.

The NH’s Purported Marriage to T~ in 1975

You advised that on April XX, 2006 (after the NH’s 2002 death), T~ filed for disability insurance benefits and stated on her application that she was currently married to the NH and that they had been married June X, 1975 in Houston, Texas. You provided information from a query of the State of Texas Marriage License Application Index showing that T~ and the NH entered into a ceremonial marriage on June XX, 1975 in Harris County, Texas. Terry died on March X, 2017.

As described above, Ms. W~, the NH’s daughter, stated that the NH had a prior marriage to T~, but Ms. W~ had no clear information about a divorce.

ANALYSIS

A. Federal Law: Widow under the Act for Widow(er)’s Insurance Benefits[4]

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, the claimant is the widow(er) of the insured individual and their marriage lasted nine months before the insured individual died.[5] See 42 U.S.C. §§ 402(e)(1), (f)(1), 416(a)(2), (c), (g); 20 C.F.R. § 404.335. [5] The marriage must have lasted for at least nine months immediately before the day the insured individual died. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.335(a); POMS GN 00305.100.

The agency will find that a claimant is an insured individual’s widow(er) if the courts of the State in which the insured individual resided at the time of death “would find that such applicant and such insured individual were validly married” at the time such insured individual died, or if, under application of that State’s intestate succession laws, the applicant would be able to inherit a spouse’s share of the insured’s personal property. See 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(1)(A); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.344, 404.345. Here, the evidence shows that the NH resided in Texas at the time of his death in 2002. We therefore look to Texas law to determine whether the Claimant is the NH’s widow. As the Claimant has alleged a common-law marriage to the NH that began in 1980, we first consider whether she has proven a common-law marriage under Texas law.

B. State Law: Validly Married under Texas Law at the Time of the NH’s Death

1. Texas Law and the Claimant’s Common-Law Marriage to the NH

a. Overview of the Elements of a Common-Law Marriage

Texas law authorizes ceremonial and common-law marriage. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 2.001 – 2.602; Russell v. Russell, 865 S.W.2d 929, 931-33 (Tex. 1993) (“[c]ommon law marriages have been recognized in Texas since 1847”); Whaley v. Peat, 377 S.W.2d 855, 857 (Tex. Civ. App. - Houston 1964, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (a Texas common-law marriage produces the same legal consequences as a ceremonial marriage). The elements of a valid common-law, or informal, marriage under Texas law are:

Texas law authorizes ceremonial and common-law marriage. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 2.001 – 2.602; Russell v. Russell, 865 S.W.2d 929, 931-33 (Tex. 1993) (“[c]ommon law marriages have been recognized in Texas since 1847”); Whaley v. Peat, 377 S.W.2d 855, 857 (Tex. Civ. App. - Houston 1964, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (a Texas common-law marriage produces the same legal consequences as a ceremonial marriage). The elements of a valid common-law, or informal, marriage under Texas law are:

(1) an agreement to be married,

(2) cohabitation in Texas as spouses, and

(3) representation, or holding out to others that they are married.

See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 2.401(a); Estate of Claveria v. Claveria, 615 S.W.2d 164, 166 (Tex. 1981); Ex parte Threet, 333 S.W.2d 361, 364 (Tex. 1960); see also Van Hooff v. Anderson, 2016 WL 193172, at *3 (Tex. App. – Amarillo Jan. 14, 2016, no pet.) (“Other than terminology used, the common law marriage requirements and the statutory requirements for an informal marriage are the same.”). A common-law marriage does not exist until a party meets all three elements, which courts determine on a case-by-case basis and on the specific facts presented. Estate of Claveria, 615 S.W.2d at 166; Nguyen v. Nguyen, 355 S.W.3d 82, 88-89 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. denied).

b. Rebuttable Presumption of No Agreement to be Married

As noted above, one of the elements of a common-law marriage is an agreement to be married. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 2.401(a). Texas law provides that if a party does not bring a proceeding to prove a common-law marriage within two years from the date the parties “separated and ceased living together,” then “it is rebuttably presumed that the parties did not enter into an agreement to be married.” Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 2.401(b).[6] Section 2.401(b) is not a statute of limitations that requires a person to prove a common-law marriage within two years of the end of the relationship; rather, it creates only a rebuttable presumption that no common-law marriage existed, and an individual may rebut such presumption with evidence showing that a common-law marriage did in fact exist. See Wilson ex rel. C.M.W. v. Estate of Williams, 99 S.W.3d 640, 644-45 (Tex. App. - Waco 2003, no pet.). The Texas Supreme Court has explained that a rebuttable presumption has “no effect on the burden of persuasion,” that the effect of a rebuttable presumption “is to shift the burden of producing evidence to the party against whom it operates,” and that “[o]nce that burden is discharged and evidence contradicting the presumption has been offered, the presumption disappears” and “[t]he evidence on the issue is then evaluated as it would be in any case.” General Motors Corp. v. Saenz o/b/o Saenz, 873 S.W.2d 353, 359 (Tex. 1993); see alsoJoplin v. Borusheski, 244 S.W.3d 607, 611 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2008, no pet.) (noting that “[t]he effect of a presumption [under Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 2.401(b)] is to force the party against whom it operates to produce evidence to negate the presumption”).

The Claimant reported that the NH moved back to Texas sometime in either 1999 or 2002, while she and their children stayed in Virginia. Additionally, the NH died in September 2002. There is no evidence in this case that the Claimant commenced a proceeding to prove a common-law marriage to the NH within two years of their separation. Because she did not commence a proceeding to prove a common-law marriage to the NH within two years of their separation, there is a rebuttable presumption that she and the NH had no agreement to be married, and thus, that she was not common-law married to the NH. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 2.401(b); Wilson ex rel. C.M.W., 99 S.W.3d at 644-45. If the Claimant provides sufficient contradicting evidence to rebut the presumption of no agreement to be married, the presumption goes away, and she must then prove the three elements of a valid common-law marriage by a preponderance of the evidence, as addressed next. See General Motors Corp., 873 S.W.2d at 359; Joplin, 244.S.W.3d at 611-612. We address below whether the Claimant has rebutted the presumption and proven a valid common-law marriage under Texas law.

c. Burden of Proof: Preponderance of the Evidence

Unlike some other States, which impose a higher burden of proof on claimants who seek to prove the existence of a common-law marriage, in Texas the party seeking to prove the existence of a common-law marriage holds the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.[7] SeeTompkins v. State, 774 S.W.2d 195, 208 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987); Farrell v. Farrell, 459 S.W.3d 114, 117 (Tex. App. – El Paso 2015, no pet.); Nguyen, 355 S.W.3d at 88-89. Texas law defines that standard as the greater weight and degree of credible evidence that would create a reasonable belief in the truth of the claim. See Herrera v. Stahl, 441 S.W.3d 739, 741 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 2014, no pet.).[8] Thus, the Claimant must prove by a preponderance of evidence that she and the NH agreed to be married, lived together in Texas as spouses, and represented to others that they were married.

In terms of the type of evidence offered to meet this burden, the Claimant provided her own statements and statements from three relatives, including two of her children with the NH, to support her claim of a valid common-law marriage with the NH.[9] Although she did not submit any documentary evidence, under Texas law, even statements alone can be sufficient to meet the preponderance of the evidence burden. See Small v. McMaster, 352 S.W.3d 280, 283-284 (Tex. App. – Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, pet. denied) (the wife’s testimony and the testimony of other witnesses was sufficient evidence of an agreement to be married). Indeed, a spouse’s statements can constitute direct evidence of the elements of a common-law marriage. See Martinez v. Lopez, 2011 WL 2112806, at *5-6 (Tex. App. – Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.) (finding that the wife’s uncontroverted testimony that they represented themselves as married to others supported the element of holding out to others, and the fact that the wife was not mentioned in financial documents was not direct proof that the couple did not represent themselves as husband and wife;); Omodele v. Adams, 2003 WL 133602, at *2 (Tex. App. – Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet.) (the wife’s uncontroverted testimony that she and the husband had an agreement to be married was alone sufficient to show an agreement to be married; testimony established that the parties lived together for almost two years and that they purchased a home and insurance together as husband and wife); Winfield v. Renfro, 821 S.W.2d 640, 645 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, writ denied) (finding that the wife’s testimony was direct evidence of their agreement to be married).

In addition, circumstantial evidence can prove the requisite elements of common-law marriage. Russell, 865 S.W.2d at 933. “A fact is established by circumstantial evidence when the fact may be fairly and reasonably inferred from other facts proved in the case.” Id. (quoting Dallas Co. Flood Control v. Cross, 815 S.W.2d 271, 279-80 (Tex. App. – Dallas 1991, writ denied)). The Texas Supreme Court has provided examples of circumstantial evidence, explaining that “proof of common-law marriage may be shown by the conduct of the parties, or by such circumstances as their addressing each other as husband and wife, acknowledging their children as legitimate, joining in conveyances as spouses, and occupying the same dwelling place.” Estate of Claveria, 615 S.W.2d at 166. “[T]he circumstances of each case [as to the elements of a common-law marriage] must be determined based upon its own facts.” Id.

Therefore, we next consider whether the greater weight and degree of credible evidence provided in the Claimant’s statements and their relatives’ statements supports a reasonable belief in the truth of the Claimant’s assertion that they agreed to be married, lived together as spouses, and represented to others that they were married. See Herrera, 441 S.W.3d at 741. In other words, we consider whether the Claimant has proven that it was more probable than not that she and the NH had a common-law marriage. See Upjohn Co. v. Freeman, 847 S.W.2d 589, 591 (Tex. App. – Dallas 1992, no writ) (“Preponderance of the evidence means the greater weight and degree of credible evidence” and the court of appeals considers whether the “trier of fact could reasonably conclude that the existence of a fact is more probable than not”). As addressed below, we believe that she has.

d. Application of the Elements of a Common-Law Marriage to the Claim

i. Elements

a. Agreement to Marry

The first element for a valid common-law marriage is an agreement to marry. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 2.401(a)(2). The parties must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that they had a “present, immediate, and permanent marital relationship and that they did in fact agree to be husband and wife.” Eris v. Phares, 39 S.W.3d 708, 714 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, pet. denied). The parties show an agreement to be married with proof that they intended to create an immediate and permanent marital relationship, not merely a cohabitation or temporary association that either party may end at any time and not an agreement to marry in the future. See Van Hooff, 2016 WL 193172, at *3; Gary v. Gary, 490 S.W.2d 929, 932 (Tex. Civ. App. – Tyler 1973, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Perales v. Flores, 147 S.W.2d 974, 976 (Tex. Civ. App – San Antonio 1941, writ ref’d). However, the parties’ intent to marry ceremonially in the future does not necessarily negate an inference that the parties believe that they are already informally or common-law married. Aguilar v. State, 715 S.W.2d 645, 648 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). As explained above, direct or circumstantial evidence may establish an agreement to be married. Russell, 865 S.W.2d at 931. Testimony of one of the parties to the marriage as to their agreement to be married constitutes some direct evidence of the parties’ agreement to be married. Small, 352 S.W.3d at 283-284. Evidence of cohabitation and representations to others that the parties are married may show circumstantial evidence of an agreement to be married. See Lee v. Lee , 981 S.W.2d 903, 906 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. denied).

As explained above, there is a rebuttable presumption under Texas law that the Claimant and the NH did not agree to be married. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 2.401(b); Wilson ex rel. C.M.W., 99 S.W.3d at 644-45. However, we believe that Texas courts would find that the Claimant has provided evidence in both her statements and witness statements, as detailed below, showing an agreement to be married starting in approximately September 1980 that is sufficient to rebut this presumption. See General Motors Corp., 873 S.W.2d at 359; In the Matter of Marriage of Farjardo, 2016 WL 4206009, at *2-4 (Tex. App. – Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 9, 2016, no pet.) (noting that the party with the burden of rebutting the presumption must come forward with more than a scintilla of evidence, and finding that the petitioner successfully rebutted the statutory presumption with her testimony that she believed respondent agreed to be married, that she lived with him for 12 years, and that he introduced her as his wife on several occasions, and with evidence of showing that they filed their tax returns jointly as spouses); Interest of J.J.F.R., 2016 WL 3944823, at *3-6 (Tex. App. – San Antonio July 20, 2016, no pet.) (noting that the party with the burden of rebutting the presumption must come forward with sufficient evidence of an agreement to be married, and finding that the petitioner successfully rebutted the statutory presumption with her testimony that she and respondent agreed to be married and began living together as husband and wife when they were expecting their first child). Thus, we next consider whether Texas courts would find that the Claimant has met her burden of establishing an agreement to marry by a preponderance of the evidence.

Here, the Claimant’s statements provide evidence that she and the NH had an agreement for a permanent marital relationship, as opposed to a cohabitation or temporary association that either party could end at any time. The Claimant reported in the SSA-795 that she and the NH were married on September XX, 1980 with a small group of friends present. The Claimant reported in the SSA-754 that she had an understanding when she began living with the NH that “we were married under God till death do us part.” The Claimant stated that she and the NH lived together in Houston, Texas from September 1980 to March 1981 and in Tyler, Texas from March 1981 to October 1989, before they moved to Virginia in 1989, where they continued to live together for more than ten years. The Claimant also stated she believed that living together made them legally married. Thus, her statements support this element.

Their conduct in their approximately 22 years together (the first nine years in Texas), as explained in statements, also supports an agreement for a permanent marital relationship. Significantly, in his 1996 application for Social Security retirement benefits, consistent with the Claimant’s claim, the NH also stated that he married the Claimant in 1980 in Houston, Texas. The NH reported that he had six children, and the Claimant was the representative payee for the children when they received child’s benefits on his record even before the NH’s death. The Claimant stated she was known as L~, and thus, was known by the NH’s last name. The Claimant also reported that she and the NH had six children together, four of whom were born during their nine years living in Texas and two more born after they all moved to Virginia together. Their approximately 22 years living together, using the same last name, and having six children together support this element of an agreement for a permanent marital relationship. See Lewis v. Anderson, 173 S.W.3d 556, 562 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2005, rehearing of pet. denied) (the couple’s long cohabitation and adoption of children was evidence supportive of an agreement to be married); In re Marriage of Hallgarth, 2001 WL 574833, at *2 (Tex. App. – Amarillo 2001, no pet.) (the decision to have children together, among other things, including use of the same last name, supported the element of an agreement to be married); Estate of Claveria, 615 S.W.2d at 166 (conduct of the parties, such as acknowledging their children as legitimate, can support a common-law marriage); Flores Gonzales v. Viuda de Gonzales, 466 S.W.2d 839, 841 (Tex. Civ. App. – Dallas 1971, writ refused n.r.e.)(the couple’s recognition and support of their child, among other evidence, was sufficient and relevant evidence to raise the issue of an agreement to be married).

Additionally, their relatives’ statements as to their cohabitation and representation to others provide circumstantial evidence to support this element. Two of the Claimant’s and the NH’s daughters, P~ and B~, believed the Claimant and the NH to be married and reported that the Claimant and the NH were generally known as husband and wife. Both of their daughters reported that their parents maintained a home and lived together as husband and wife in Texas from 1980 until around 1990 when they moved to Virginia and continued living together after they moved. Similarly, T~, the Claimant’s brother, stated that the NH and the Claimant were married, lived together, and had six children. He stated that the NH and the Claimant would come together to family gatherings at least once a year and they “were always very open about being married.” Mr. S~ stated that when he saw the NH and the Claimant they would refer to each other as husband and wife. Thus, all three relatives relayed that the NH and Claimant referred to each other as husband and wife, were generally known as husband and wife, and they believed them to be husband and wife. This evidence of cohabitation and representation to others provides circumstantial evidence to support this element of an agreement for a permanent marital relationship. SeeIn re Marriage of Hallgarth, 2001 WL 574833, at *2 (finding that 15 years of cohabitation, use of the same last name, and representations to third parties that they were married constituted sufficient evidence of an agreement to be married); Gonzalez, 466 S.W.2d at 841 (finding an agreement to be married where the couple lived together, held themselves out as husband and wife, and recognized and supported their children); Lee, 981 S.W.2d at 906 (representations to others can constitute circumstantial evidence of an agreement to be married).

Considering this uncontroverted evidence, we believe Texas courts would find that the greater weight and degree of credible evidence supports a reasonable belief that they had an agreement for a permanent marital relationship, as opposed to a temporary cohabitation or association that could be ended at any time. See Omodele , 2003 WL 133602, at *2 (the wife’s uncontroverted testimony that she and the husband had an agreement to be married was alone sufficient to show an agreement to be married; testimony established that the parties lived together for almost two years and that they purchased a home and insurance together as husband and wife); Small, 352 S.W.3d at 283-284 (the wife’s testimony and the testimony of other witnesses was sufficient evidence of an agreement to be married); Eris, 39 S.W.3d at 714 (the court found that the following evidence was sufficient to support the element of an agreement to be married: the husband presented evidence that the wife moved into his home shortly after they began dating; that she kept a few items of furniture, clothing, and personal items there; that she slept at his home every night; and that they two lived as if they were married; in addition, several of their friends and employees testified that they considered the couple to be married).

Thus, we believe that Texas courts would find that the Claimant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that she and the NH had an agreement to create an immediate and permanent marital relationship that indeed lasted approximately 22 years from 1980 until the NH’s death in 2002, with the first nine years of their marriage in Texas before moving to Virginia. As such, we believe the agency could reasonably conclude that the Claimant has proven the first element for a valid common-law marriage under Texas law.

b. Cohabitation as Spouses

The second element for a valid common-law marriage requires that the couple live together in Texas as spouses, but the cohabitation need not be continuous for a couple to prove a common-law marriage. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 2.401(a)(2); Small, 352 S.W.3d at 284. Additionally, as relevant here where the couple lived in both Texas and Virginia, under Texas law, the Claimant must prove the elements of a common-law marriage while living in Texas. See Williams v. Home Indem. Co., 722 S.W.2d 786, 788 (Tex. App. – Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, no writ) (living together and holding out in another State does not satisfy the requirements for common-law in Texas); Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 2.401(a)(2) (“they lived together in this state as husband and wife and there represented to others that they were married”) (emphasis added).

The statements from the Claimant, her brother, and the Claimant’s and the NH’s daughters support this element of cohabitation in Texas. The Claimant stated in her application that they were common-law married and lived together in Houston, Texas from September 1980 to March 1981 and in Tyler, Texas from March 1981 to October 1989, before they moved to Virginia. Four of their six children were born during their years living together in Tyler, Texas. Although the Claimant and the NH moved to Virginia in 1989, as shown, there is evidence that the Claimant and the NH lived together in Texas for approximately nine years before they moved. Therefore, this evidence is legally sufficient to support a finding that the Claimant and the NH lived together as husband and wife in Texas. As also relevant here where the NH and the Claimant separated in the final year or so of their relationship, even if a couple is not living together at the time of the death, they can still meet the element of cohabitation. Martinez v. Furmanite America, Inc., 2018 WL 4469973, at *6 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 2018, pet. denied). Furthermore, once a common-law marriage exists, it, like a ceremonial marriage, may be terminated only by death or a court decree of divorce or annulment. SeeEstate of Claveria, 615 S.W.2d at 167. Thus, separating and moving to another State do not terminate a valid Texas common-law marriage. Considering the nine years the Claimant and the NH lived in Texas where four of their children were born, we believe Texas courts would find that the greater weight and degree of credible evidence supports a reasonable belief that the Claimant and the NH cohabited in Texas as spouses.

c. Representation to Others as Married

The third element for a valid common-law marriage requires that the couple held out to the public, or represented to others while living in Texas, that they were married. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 2.401(a)(2). Representation of the marriage to others, or holding out to the public as being married, can be shown through the “conduct and actions of the parties.” Eris, 39 S.W.3d at 715. Spoken words are not necessary to prove this element; rather, the focus is upon whether the couple had a reputation for being married. Id. Occasional introductions as husband and wife are not enough to satisfy the holding out requirement, and there is no such thing as a secret common-law marriage. Threet, 333 S.W.2d at 364; Winfield, 821 S.W.2d at 648-51. Instead, Texas law requires that the couple “consistently [conduct] themselves as husband and wife in the public eye or that the community [view] them as married.” Van Hooff, 2016 WL 193172, at *5. “[T]he jurisprudence in Texas strictly construes the holding out element and has held that marriage is more than a contract; it is a ‘status’ in the community, a general reputation, a public and open holding out that the parties are man and wife.” Id. at *6.

The evidence provided establishes that the Claimant’s relationship with the NH was not secret or known to only a few, but rather shows that their approximately 22-year relationship was well known. In the Form SSA-754, the Claimant stated that in introducing themselves to others, she and the NH referred to one another as husband and wife. The Claimant and their six children used the NH’s last name. The Claimant listed numerous relatives and others who knew of their relationship . Two of the NH’s daughters and the Claimant’s brother stated that the couple referred to each other as husband and wife, the couple was generally known as husband and wife, and they believed them to be husband and wife. Their statements all support this element.

Additionally, the NH’s daughter, K~, wrote in her April 2019 statement that at the time of the NH’s death, he was married to the Claimant. She stated that the NH and the Claimant lived together in Texas and Virginia from 1980 to 1997. We note that one year later in April 2020, Ms. W~ changed her statement and wrote that as far as she knew, there was no marriage between the NH and the Claimant, though she acknowledged that they lived together for 17 years. She stated that she was uncertain if the NH’s prior marriage to T~ had ended by divorce before his relationship with the Claimant. The Claimant told the agency that she believed Ms. W~ was mad at her for not caring for the NH when he became ill. The Claimant also stated that Ms. W~ did not tell her that the NH had been placed in hospice or even that the NH had died. Thus, Ms. W~ provides inconsistent statements that on the one hand support this element, but also raise questions about the validity of a marriage between the NH and the Claimant.

A Texas court, as the fact finder, resolves conflicts in the evidence and is free to disbelieve one party’s evidence and credit the testimony of the other party’s witnesses. Estate of Whetstone, 2019 WL 698090, at *4 (Tex. App. – Dallas Feb. 20, 2010, pet. denied).Given Ms. W~ own inconsistent statements to the agency and possible motivation to provide statements against the Claimant, and considering the three consistent witness statements provided to support the Claimant’s common-law marriage claim, as well as the NH’s own statement in his 1996 application that he was married to the Claimant, we believe that Texas courts would find that the greater weight and degree of credible evidence supports a reasonable belief that over the course of their approximately 22-year relationship, including living together continuously in Texas for nine years and having six children together (four during their time in Texas), the Claimant and the NH held themselves out to others as being in a committed and dedicated marital relationship. See Martinez, 2011 WL 2112806, at *5-6 (finding that the wife’s uncontroverted testimony that they represented themselves as married to others supported the element of holding out to others); Estate of Claveria, 615 S.W.2d at 166 (proof of common-law marriage shown by such circumstances as occupying the same dwelling, acknowledging their children as legitimate, and addressing each other as husband and wife); In re Estate of Giessel, 734 S.W.2d 27, 30-31 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (the following evidence supported the holding out element: the couple had lived together as husband and wife for 20 years, the husband represented to many people in the community that the woman was his wife, and the couple had a reputation in the community for being married).

Thus, we believe that Texas courts would find that the Claimant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that they represented to others that they were in a committed marital relationship. Accordingly, we believe the agency could reasonably conclude that the Claimant has proven the third element for a valid common-law marriage under Texas law.

ii. The Totality of Evidence

In summary, despite the conflicting statements from the NH’s daughter, viewing the totality of the evidence, we believe that Texas courts would find that the statements from the Claimant, the Claimant’s brother, and the Claimant’s and the NH’s two daughters establish that the Claimant and the NH agreed to be married, lived together, and represented to others that they were married. In addition, it is significant that in 1996, the NH reported to the agency that he was married to the Claimant. Furthermore, during the course of their approximately 22-year marriage with the first nine years spent in Texas, the NH and the Claimant had six children together, four born in Texas and two in Virginia. SSA previously awarded the children benefits on the NH’s record as his children. The Claimant and his children used the NH’s last name. In light of these uncontroverted facts, we believe that the agency could reasonably conclude that Texas courts would find that the Claimant and the NH established a common-law marriage under Texas law at the time of the NH’s death in 2002.

2. The NH’s Multiple Marriages, the Presumption of the Validity of the Claimant’s Most Recent Marriage to the NH, and Rebutting the Presumption

As detailed above, there is evidence of the NH’s common-law marriage to the Claimant beginning in 1980 in Texas. However, there is also some evidence of the NH’s prior marriage to T~ in Texas in 1975. When two or more marriages of a person to different spouses are alleged, Texas law presumes the validity of the most recent marriage until the validity of the prior marriage is proven. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 1.102. The presumption of the validity of the most recent marriage is one of the strongest presumptions under Texas law. See Texas Employer’s Ins. Ass’n. v. Elder, 282 S.W.2d 371, 373 (Tex. 1955). “The presumption’s strength increases with the lapse of time, acknowledgements by the parties to the marriage, and the birth of children.” In re Estate of Loveless, 64 S.W.3d 564, 574 (Tex. App. – Texarkana 2001, no pet.). Texas law presumes that the Claimant is the NH’s legal widow because her 1980 marriage to the NH in Texas was his last, or most recent marriage. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 1.102.The burden is on the party attacking the validity of the most recent marriage, who must establish both the existence of the prior marriage and its continuing validity at the time of the later alleged marriage and must introduce sufficient evidence, standing alone, to negate the dissolution of the prior marriage. See Estate of Claveria, 615 S.W.2d at 165; In re Estate of Loveless, 64 S.W.3d at 574. As presented above, the evidence indicates that the NH may still have been married to T~, whom he purportedly married in 1975, at the time of the NH’s common-law marriage to the Claimant in 1980. Under Texas law, a marriage is void if entered into when either party has an existing marriage to another person that has not been dissolved by legal action or terminated by the other spouse’s death. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 6.202(a); see also Romano v. Newell Recycling of San Antonio, L.P., 2008 WL 227974 at *3 (Tex. App.-San Antonio January 30, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“This rule rendering the subsequent marriage void applies whether the marriage is ceremonial or common law.”); Phillips v. The Dow Chemical Company, 186 S.W.3d 121, 127 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (“Thus, a marriage entered into while one party is married to another person is void from the outset as a matter of law.”).

Therefore, we consider whether a Texas court would find that the T~ and the NH were: (1) validly married in 1975, and (2) remained married at the time the NH entered into his common-law marriage with the Claimant in 1980 and until his death in 2002, such that the NH’s common-law marriage to the Claimant was void.

a. Texas Courts Would Likely Recognize the 1975 Marriage Between the NH and the T~ as Valid

As noted above, we must first consider whether Texas courts would find that T~ and the NH were validly married. The evidence provided indicates that T~ and the NH had a ceremonial marriage. A ceremonial marriage requires a couple to obtain a marriage license from a county clerk, participate in a marriage ceremony by an authorized person, and return the marriage license after the ceremony to the county clerk, who then records the marriage license and mails the certified copy to the married couple. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 2.2002, 2.203(a), 2.206(a), 2.208(a). The recorded marriage license with the completed marriage certificate is proof of a valid marriage. See Black v. Shell Oil Co. , 397 S.W.2d 877, 881 (Tex. Civ. App. - Texarkana 1965, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Jones v. State , 17 S.W.2d 1053, 1056 (Tex. Crim. App. 1928); see also Simpson v. Simpson , 380 S.W.2d 855, (Tex. Civ. App. – Dallas 1964, writ ref’d n.r.e) (“It has long been the established law of Texas that a ceremonial marriage entered into in accordance with legal forms will raise the presumption, or inference of its legality.”).

We do not have a copy of a recorded marriage license/certificate reflecting T~ marriage to the NH, but instead, we have two statements and a record from the State’s marriage license application index. T~ reported in her 2006 application for disability benefits (filed after the NH’s death in 2002) that she was currently married to the NH and that they married on June X, 1975, in Houston, Texas. In addition, Ms. W~, the NH’s daughter, also stated that sometime approximately between 1975 and 1977, T~ and the NH were married in Houston, Texas by a justice of the peace. Most importantly, a query of the State of Texas Marriage License Application Indexes available online shows a record of a marriage on June XX, 1975, between the NH (age 43) and T~ (age 20) in Harris County, Texas. See https://dshs.texas.gov/vs/marriagedivorce/mindex.shtm (last visited June 23, 2020). The website for the Texas Department of State Health Services, Vital Statistics unit explains that the Marriage License Application Indexes are a compilation of the marriage license applications that are sent to the Vital Statistics Section of the Texas Department of State Health Services from the county clerk in which the marriage license is filed. See id.

Texas law provides that the county clerk is to file with the State’s vital statistics unit a copy of “each completed marriage license application.” Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 194.001(a). Further, “[t]he vital statistics unit shall maintain a statewide alphabetical index, under the names of both parties, of each marriage license application or declaration of informal marriage.” Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 194.003(a). Thus, although there is no completed marriage license/certificate here, the State of Texas Marriage License Application Index indicates that the marriage license was returned to the county clerk for recordation after the marriage ceremony between the NH and T~ was performed. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 2.206(a) (the person who conducts the marriage ceremony is to complete the marriage license with regard to the ceremony information and return the license to the county clerk), 2.208(b) (upon receipt of a returned and completed marriage license following the ceremony, the county clerk is to record on the marriage application the date of the marriage ceremony, the county in which the ceremony was conducted, and the name of the person who conducted the ceremony). Thus, we believe a Texas court would find that the Marriage License Application Index record is sufficient evidence to prove a Texas ceremonial marriage between the NH and T~ on June XX, 1975.

In addition, Texas law provides that every marriage entered into in this State is presumed to be valid unless expressly made void or voidable. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §1.01. Under Texas law, in order to establish a valid marriage, the parties must possess legal capacity to marry, and there must not be any legal impediment prohibiting the marriage. Franklin v. Smallridge, 610 S.W.2d 655, 657 (Tex. Civ. App. –Corpus Christi 1981, no writ). The evidence provided does not indicate that the NH and T~ were prohibited from marrying by age, mental capacity, or a previous existing marriage. Therefore, we believe a Texas court would likely recognize as valid the June 1975 marriage between T~ and the NH. We next consider whether there would be sufficient evidence, standing alone, to show that the marriage continued at the time of the Claimant’s more recent common law marriage to the NH.

A marriage terminates only upon death, divorce, or annulment. Estate of Claveria, 615 S.W.2d at 167; see also Garcia v. Garcia, 2012 WL 3115763, at *5 (Tex. App. – Fort Worth 2012, no pet.) (subsequent denials do not undo a marriage).As stated above, to rebut the presumption that the NH’s most recent marriage to the Claimant is valid, the evidence must prove the validity of T~ previous marriage to the NH and its continuing validity at the time the NH entered into his common-law marriage with the Claimant in 1980. See In re Estate of Loveless, 64 S.W.3d at 574. Texas case law explains that the party attacking the validity of the most recent marriage must present “sufficient evidence, standing alone, to negate the dissolution of the previous marriage.” Id. As we believe Texas courts would likely find evidence of a valid marriage between the NH and T~ beginning in June 1975, we next consider whether there is sufficient evidence, standing alone, to show that their marriage had not been dissolved as of the time the NH married the Claimant in 1980 (or at any point during the course of their nine years living together in Texas before moving to Virginia).[10]

b. Texas Courts Would Find the Evidence Does not Rebut the Presumption of Validity of the Most Recent Marriage Between the NH and the Claimant

The party attacking the validity of the subsequent marriage must introduce sufficient evidence standing alone to negate the dissolution of the previous marriage. In re Estate of Loveless, 64 S.W.3d at 574. Evidence of the absence of official divorce or annulment records will rebut the presumption that the prior marriage was dissolved and that the most recent marriage is valid. See Davis v. Davis , 521 S.W.2d 603, 605 (Tex. 1975); see also Nguyen v. Nguyen, 355 S.W.3d 82, 89 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. denied) (to rebut the presumption of validity of last marriage, proponent of earlier marriage must prove that the first spouse was alive at the time the husband married the second wife and that neither secured a divorce or annulment). In terms of proving the absence of a divorce or annulment, courts have held that a search of county records where the parties had lived would provide reasonable and sufficient evidence of a lack of a record of divorce. See Rodriguez v. Avalos, 567 S.W.2d 85, 87 (Tex. App. – El Paso 1978, no writ) (certificate from district court clerk certifying that no divorce was ever filed demonstrated the continued existence of first marriage and rebutted the presumption of the validity of the subsequent marriage); Dockery v. Brown, 209 S.W.2d 801, 803 (Tex. App. – El Paso 1947, no writ) (the first spouse “was not required to establish absolutely nor to a moral certainty that her marriage to [the husband] had not been dissolved, but the requirements of the law were met if she introduced sufficient evidence, standing alone, to negate such dissolution . . . She was not required to do the unreasonable and look to every jurisdiction where a proceeding might possibly be had, but to look only where such proceedings must reasonably be expected to be had under the law.”).

Because T~ and the NH were married in Harris County, Texas, it would be reasonable for either T~ or the NH to obtain a divorce in Houston, which is in Harris County, Texas. We do not have information on where T~ subsequently lived. The Claimant reported that she and the NH lived briefly in Houston from 1980 to 1981 and then lived for eight years in Tyler, Texas, which is in Smith County, from 1981 to 1989. In her 2006 application for benefits, T~ reported that she was currently married to the NH, though he had died in 2002. T~ subsequently died in 2017. We do not have evidence regarding any search of records in Harris County or Smith County, Texas. All we have are statements from the NH’s daughter, Ms. W~, that she was not sure if the NH’s marriage to T~ had been dissolved prior to his relationship with the Claimant. In her April 2019 statement, she reported: “I never was sure his divorce from his 3rd wife T~ was finalized.” In her April 2020 statement, Ms. W~ stated she thought that the NH got divorce paperwork from T~, but she did not know what happened with it.

We believe a Texas court would find that these vague statements from Ms. W~ that she was not sure if the divorce between T~and the NH was finalized is not sufficient evidence to establish a lack of a record of divorce between T~ and the NH. As stated, the party attacking the validity of the subsequent marriage must introduce sufficient evidence, standing alone, to negate dissolution of the previous marriage. In re Estate of Loveless, 64 S.W.3d at 574. We believe a Texas court would find that the vague statements were insufficient to negate the dissolution of the marriage between T~ and the NH.

In addition, in weighing the totality of the evidence as to both marriages, the evidence provided strongly supports the presumption of the validity of the most recent common-law marriage between the Claimant and the NH. For example, the Claimant stated she and the NH were married and lived together for nearly 20 years (with nine years together in Texas), they referred to each other as husband and wife, they had six children together, and they all used the NH’s last name. In his 1996 application for benefits, the NH reported to the agency that he was married to the Claimant since 1980. Additionally, the Claimant’s brother and two of their six children stated that the NH and the Claimant were generally known as husband and wife, and that the Claimant and the NH were very open about their marriage. Ms. W~, the NH’s daughter, also stated that the NH was married to the Claimant at the time of his death in her original statement to the agency and acknowledged that they lived together for more than 17 years. Under the specific facts here, the evidence of T~ and the NH’s prior marriage with Ms. W~’ vague statements that she was unclear as to whether they divorced, does not overcome the stronger evidence of the Claimant and NH’s more recent common-law marriage of approximately 22 years with six children. The presumption’s strength increases with the lapse of time, acknowledgment by the parties to the marriage, and the birth of children – all of which are present here. In re Estate of Loveless, 64 S.W.3d at 574.

Therefore, for all of these reasons, we believe a Texas court would likely find that the evidence of T~ prior marriage to the NH with the absence of evidence of a divorce does not rebut the very strong presumption of the validity of the NH’s common-law marriage to the Claimant in 1980. See Texas Employer’s Ins. Ass’n v. Elder, 282 S.W.2d at 373 (affirming the court of appeals’ finding that “[t]here is no evidence that the first marriage had been dissolved or that it had not been dissolved” and thus, “in the absence of evidence it will be presumed that the subsequent marriage was legal, and that the prior marriage had been dissolved.”); In re Estate of Loveless, 64 S.W.3d at 574 (“This presumption is one of the strongest, if not the strongest, known to law. The presumption is, in itself, evidence and may even outweigh positive evidence to the contrary.”). As such, we believe a Texas court would find that under Texas law, the Claimant was validly married to the NH at the time of his death in 2002.

Conclusion

We believe that a Texas court would find that the Claimant has proven that she and the NH entered into a common-law marriage in September 1980 and that she was validly married to the NH at the time of the NH’s death in September 2002. Therefore, we believe that the agency may reasonably conclude that the Claimant is the NH’s widow under the Act for Title II widow’s benefit purposes .

Footnotes:

[1]The Act defines the term surviving spouse to mean a widow or widower. See Act § 216(a)(2), (c), (g), 42 U.S.C. § 416(a)(2), (c), (g).

[2] You advised that in the SSA system, this marriage was coded as a ceremonial marriage at that time in 1996. No documentary evidence of a ceremonial marriage has been provided to us with this legal opinion request.

[3] You advised that the Claimant did not file for spouse’s benefits on the NH’s record as a spouse under the age 62 who had a child in her care entitled to child’s insurance benefits on the NH’s record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.330(c).

[4] A claimant must satisfy other criteria for entitlement to widow(er)’s insurance benefits that are outside the scope of this legal opinion request, which asks only about marital status. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 402(e), (f), 416(c), (g); 20 C.F.R. § 404.335.

[5] The marriage must have lasted for at least nine months immediately before the day the insured individual died. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.335(a); POMS GN 00305.100.

[6] Separating and ceasing living together includes the death of one of the spouses of a purported common-law marriage. See Prince v. Foreman, 2010 WL 87334, at *1-2 (Tex. App. – Ft. Worth 2010, pet. denied); Lopez-Rodriguez v. City of Levelland , 2004 WL 1746045, at *7 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 3, 2004).

[7] Because of the States’ differing burdens of proof, other States applying a higher burden of proof may have an outcome different from the one in this case.

[8] Parties to a common-law marriage may execute a declaration of informal marriage on a form prescribed by the bureau of vital statistics and provided by the county clerk, which affirms the elements of a common-law marriage and constitutes prima facie evidence of the marriage. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 2.402, 2.404(d); Russell, 865 S.W.2d at 931; Rodriguez v. State, 2018 WL 3372637, at *15 (Tex. App. – El Paso July 11, 2018, no pet.); Van Hooff, 2016 WL 193172, at *3. There is no such declaration of informal marriage in the present case, however. Therefore, the Claimant must prove the three elements of a common-law marriage by a preponderance of the evidence.

[9] The regulations explain that a person who applies for Social Security spousal benefits, such as widow’s benefits, on a number holder’s record, must provide evidence of the marriage to the number holder and sets out the agency’s preferred evidence of marriage. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.704, 404.709, 404.723 – 404.726. The preferred evidence of a common-law marriage if either the husband or wife is dead is the signed statement of the one who is alive and those of two blood relatives of the deceased person. 20 C.F.R. §404.726(b)(2). We note that the Claimant provided the agency’s preferred evidence of their common-law marriage as she provided her own statement, and the agency obtained two Form SSA-753s from two of the NH’s blood relatives, his daughters P` and B`. The regulations provide that “[i]f you give us the type of evidence we have shown as preferred in the following sections of this subpart, we will generally find it is convincing evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.709. We consider whether this preferred evidence satisfies Texas’s preponderance of the evidence standard of proof.

[10] Under Texas law, a marriage that is void because one of the parties to the marriage has an existing marriage may become a common-law marriage upon the dissolution of the prior marriage. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 6.202; Omodele, 2003 WL 133602, at *3-4 (the impediment to the common-law marriage was removed when the husband’s divorce from his previous wife became final; thus, the prior marriage did not preclude the existence of the subsequent valid common-law marriage following the divorce).

B. Texas State Law – Rebuttal of Presumption of Validity of the Last Marriage

Date: April 29, 2020

1. Syllabus

The number holder (NH) resided in Texas at the time of his death; therefore, we look to Texas law to determine whether the Claimant is the NH’s widow. Based on the evidence the provided, we believe that a Texas court would find that the Claimant has proven that she was validly married to the NH at the time of the NH’s death. Therefore, we believe that the agency may reasonably conclude that the Claimant is the NH’s widow under the Act for Title II widow’s benefit.

2. Opinion

Question Presented

In light of evidence regarding the deceased number holder D~ K~ (NH’s) marriages to both M~ (Claimant) and M~ (M~), you asked whether the Claimant or M~ was validly married to the NH under Texas law at the time of his death in September 2017 for purposes of determining the Claimant’s entitlement to widow’s insurance benefits on the NH’s record as his widow[1] under Title II of the Social Security Act (Act).[2]

Answer

We believe that a Texas court would find that the Claimant and the NH were validly married at the time of the NH’s death in September 2017. Therefore, we believe there is legal support for the Social Security Administration (SSA or agency) to find that the Claimant is the NH’s widow for purposes of her application for widow’s insurance benefits on the NH’s record.

Background

The NH died on September xx, 2017, while domiciled in Texas. There is evidence indicating that the NH entered into multiple marriages, and it is our understanding that the agency has been paying widow’s benefits and paid the lump sum death payment (LSDP) to the NH’s last wife, M~, on his record since September 2017, when she filed for benefits on the NH’s record as his widow.

Your legal opinion request focuses only upon whether the Claimant or M~ is the NH’s legal widow. There is evidence indicating that the NH had marriages to two other women. However, both of these marriages began and ended prior to the NH’s marriages to both the Claimant and M~, and thus they are not relevant to our analysis. This legal opinion focuses solely upon the Claimant’s and M~ claims for benefits as the NH’s widow. Below, we identify the evidence related to their purported marriages to the NH.

The NH’s Purported Marriage to the Claimant in 1980

You advised that on May XX, 2019, the Claimant filed an application for widow’s benefits. In her application, the Claimant stated that she and the NH married on January x, 1980 in El Paso, Texas.

The agency obtained statements from the Claimant in the Form SSA-795, Statement of Claimant or Other Person, as follows:

  • The Claimant provided her handwritten statement on the Form SSA-795 on June 11, 2019. She left blank the portion of the form that asked her to identify her relationship to the NH. The Claimant wrote that she and the NH lived together from 1979 to 1983[3] and “married 1980”[4] in Las Vegas, Nevada. She explained that they lived together in Phoenix, Arizona and Litchfield Park, Arizona from 1979 to 1980 and in El Paso, Texas from 1980 to 1983, at which point she “left and did not know where he [the NH] was.” The Claimant stated that she never divorced the NH and he never filed for a divorce from her. She said that she had her marriage license and military identification card. The Claimant explained that she did not hear of the NH’s passing until “early this year” and was told by the agency that he remarried and “his wife was told by him he was never married!”

  • The Claimant provided a second handwritten statement on the Form SSA-795 on July 5, 2019,[5] and described her relationship to the NH as “spouse.” Similar to her first statement, she wrote that she and the NH married on November xx, 1980; they lived together for 2.5 years; and they bore no children together. She said that they separated in 1983, but neither wanted to pursue a divorce and they never served each other with divorce papers. Although in her first statement she reported that she did not know where the NH lived after she left him in 1983, in this statement, the Claimant now explained that following their separation, the NH remained in El Paso and Plano, Texas. She moved to Arizona, where the NH would visit, and then she moved to Michigan. The Claimant stated that to her “knowledge and understanding we are still legally married, if so, this benefit would fall to me.” She wrote that she “provided proof from all areas [the NH] lived that a divorce was never filed on his part.”

    In support of her application for widow’s benefits, the Claimant provided the agency with the following documentary evidence:

  • A copy of a Clark County, Nevada Marriage Certificate showing that the Claimant[6] and the NH entered into a ceremonial marriage on November xx, 1980 in Las Vegas, Nevada and the marriage was recorded in the Clark County, Nevada Book of Marriages on January xx, 1981;

  • A copy of the Claimant’s Social Security card listing her name as “M~”;

  • A copy of the Claimant’s Michigan driver’s license issued on December XX, 2015, listing her name as “M~” with an address in Howell, Michigan;

  • A copy of the Claimant’s Uniformed Services Identification and Privilege card issued on November XX, 1980, at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona, with an effective date of November XX, 1980, and expiration date of November XX, 1983. The identification and privilege card shows the Claimant’s name as “M~” and identifies her as the NH’s wife;

  • A document dated June X, 2019, from the Clerk of the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, in and for the County of Maricopa (which includes Phoenix and Litchfield Park), certifying that the clerk’s office could not find any domestic relations case initiation records for the Claimant (M~) from January X, 1969, through May XX, 2019;

  • A “To Whom It May Concern” letter dated July X, 2019, from the District Clerk for the District Court of Collin County, Texas (which includes most of Plano), stating that the clerk’s office could not locate any records for the Claimant (M~);

  • A “To Whom It May Concern” letter dated May XX, 2019, from the El Paso County, Texas District Clerk’s Office certifying that a search of civil and family index records from 1980 to the present revealed no civil petition regarding a divorce between the Claimant and the NH (D~ v. M~); and

  • A document dated February X, 2020, from the Livingston County, Michigan Circuit Court Clerk stating that a search of court records from 1980 through the present revealed no records for the Claimant (M~) or the NH (D~).

You advised that on his April XX, 2000 application for retirement benefits, the NH did not list a marriage to the Claimant (but he did list his marriage to M~).

The NH’s Purported Marriage to M~ in 1983

You advised that on September XX, 2017, M~ filed an application for widow’s benefits and the LSDP as the NH’s spouse living in the same household. M~ said that she and the NH married on May xx 1983, in El Paso, Texas, and you advised that she provided proof of this marriage. The agency awarded Maelena benefits on the NH’s record effective September 2017.

You indicated that after the Claimant applied for widow’s benefits on the NH’s record in May 2019, the agency contacted M~ regarding the NH’s prior marriages. At the agency’s request, M~ completed the Form SSA-795 on July 24, 2019, and described her relationship to the NH as “surv spouse.” She wrote that she had “no knowledge or documents” concerning the NH’s prior marriages. M~ also stated that she and the NH married in 1983 and received their marriage license in Dallas, Texas.

As stated, you advised that the NH listed his marriage to M~ on his April XX, 2000 application for retirement benefits (but did not list a marriage to the Claimant). Through our own research, we also located the NH’s published obituary following his death on September XX, 2017, which identifies Maelena as his wife.[7]

ANALYSIS

A. Federal Law: Widow under the Act for Widow(er)’s Insurance Benefits[8]

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, the claimant is the widow(er) of the insured individual and their marriage lasted nine months before the insured individual died.[9] See 42 U.S.C. §§ 402(e)(1), (f)(1), 416(a)(2), (c), (g); 20 C.F.R. § 404.335.

The agency will find that a claimant is an insured individual’s widow(er) if the courts of the State in which the insured individual resided at the time of death “would find that such applicant and such insured individual were validly married” at the time such insured individual died, or if, under application of that State’s intestate succession laws, the applicant would be able to inherit a spouse’s share of the insured’s personal property. See 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(1)(A); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.344, 404.345. Here, the evidence shows that the NH resided in Texas at the time of his death in 2017. We therefore look to Texas law to determine whether the Claimant is the NH’s widow.

B. State Law: Validly Married under Texas Law at the Time of the NH’s Death

1. The NH’s Multiple Marriages and the Presumption of the Validity of the Most Recent Marriage to M~

In Texas, marriages may be either ceremonial or common-law. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 2.001 – 2.602; Russell v. Russell, 865 S.W.2d 929, 931-33 (Tex. 1993) (“[c]ommon law marriages have been recognized in Texas since 1847”). Here, there is evidence of the NH’s ceremonial marriage to the Claimant beginning in 1980 in Nevada, but there is also evidence of the NH’s ceremonial marriage to M~ in Texas in 1983. When two or more marriages of a person to different spouses are alleged, Texas law presumes the validity of the most recent marriage until the validity of the prior marriage is proven. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 1.102. The presumption of the validity of the most recent marriage is one of the strongest presumptions under Texas law. See Texas Employer’s Ins. Ass’n. v. Elder , 282 S.W.2d 371, 373 (Tex. 1955). “The presumption’s strength increases with the lapse of time, acknowledgements by the parties to the marriage, and the birth of children.” In re Estate of Loveless , 64 S.W.3d 564, 574 (Tex. App. – Texarkana 2001, no pet.).

It is our understanding that the agency determined M~ presented sufficient evidence establishing that she was validly married to the NH in a ceremonial marriage in Texas in May 1983, granted her September 2017 application for benefits as the NH’s widow living in the same household, paid her the LSDP, and that she is currently entitled to widow’s benefits on the NH’s record.[10] Texas law presumes that M~ is the NH’s legal widow because her 1983 marriage to the NH in Texas was his last, or most recent marriage. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 1.102; see also Dockery v. Brown, 209 S.W.2d 801, (Tex. App. – El Paso 1947, no writ) (“It has long been the law that a ceremonial marriage entered into in accordance with legal forms will raise the presumption, or inference of its legality and the dissolution of a former marriage. But this is rebuttable.”)

2. Rebutting the Presumption of the Most Recent Marriage With Evidence of the NH’s Prior Marriage to the Claimant and its Continuing Validity

The burden is on the party attacking the validity of the most recent marriage, who must establish both the existence of the prior marriage and its continuing validity at the time of the later alleged marriage and must introduce sufficient evidence, standing alone, to negate the dissolution of the prior marriage. See Estate of Claveria v. Claveria, 615 S.W.2d 164, 165 (Tex. 1981); In re Estate of Loveless, 64 S.W.3d at 574. As presented above, the evidence indicates that the NH may still have been married to the Claimant, whom he married in 1980, at the time he married M~ in 1983. Under Texas law, a marriage is void if entered into when either party has an existing marriage to another person that has not been dissolved by legal action or terminated by the other spouse’s death. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 6.202(a); see also Romano v. Newell Recycling of San Antonio, L.P., 2008 WL 227974 at *3 (Tex. App.-San Antonio January 30, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“This rule rendering the subsequent marriage void applies whether the marriage is ceremonial or common law.”); Phillips v. The Dow Chemical Company, 186 S.W.3d 121, 127 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (“Thus, a marriage entered into while one party is married to another person is void from the outset as a matter of law.”) .

Therefore, we consider whether a Texas court would find that the Claimant and the NH were: (1) validly married in 1980, and (2) remained married at the time the NH entered into his ceremonial marriage with M~ in 1983, such that the NH’s ceremonial marriage to M~ was void.

a. Texas Courts Would Recognize the 1980 Nevada Ceremonial Marriage Between the NH and the Claimant as Valid

As noted above, we must first consider whether Texas courts would find that the Claimant has proven that she and the NH were validly married. Although the NH did not list a marriage to the Claimant in his April 2000 application for retirement benefits, the Claimant provided the agency with a completed and recorded Nevada marriage certificate evidencing her ceremonial marriage with the NH beginning on November xx, 1980.[11] The marriage certificate establishes that, in accordance with Nevada marriage laws, a minister performed a marriage ceremony between the NH and the Claimant, with their mutual consent, on November XX, 1980, in Litchfield Park, Arizona before a witness, and the certificate was filed in the book of marriages for Clark County, Nevada on JanuaryXX, 1981. See Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 122.010 (marriage is a civil contract; it requires consent and must be solemnized and authorized by law), § 122.030 (under Nevada law, a marriage certificate is “presumptive evidence of the fact of the marriage”), § 122.110 (no particular form of solemnization is required, at least one witness must be present), § 122.120 (form for the certificate of marriage), § 122.130 (recording of the certificate in the county record books).[12] The agency’s regulations explain that a certificate of marriage qualifies as preferred evidence of a ceremonial marriage. 20 C.F.R. § 404.725(b)(2); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.709 (if you give us the type of evidence we have shown as preferred evidence we will generally find it is convincing evidence).

We also believe Texas courts would recognize the Claimant’s Nevada ceremonial marriage to the NH. The Full Faith and Credit clause of the United States Constitution states that “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.” U.S. Const. art. IV, § 1. Additionally, the United States Supreme Court has stated, “[m]arriages not polygamous or incestuous, or otherwise declared void by statutes, will, if valid by the law of the state where entered into, be recognized as valid in every other jurisdiction.” Loughran v. Loughran, et al., 292 U.S. 216, 223 (1934). It is our understanding that the ceremonial marriage between the Claimant and the NH in Nevada was not polygamous, incestuous, or otherwise void under Nevada or Texas law. Texas case law reflects that Texas courts generally recognize marriages properly performed in other States that would not otherwisebe void under Texas law.[13] See, e.g., De Lucenay v. State, 68 S.W. 796, 797 (Tex. Crim. App. 1902) (prosecuting defendant for bigamy, establishing California marriage with California marriage license); Fuentes v. Zaragoza, 555 S.W.3d 141, 153 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, no pet.) (“Texas law presumes that every marriage is valid,” and “[t]his presumption applies to persons who were married outside the state of Texas”); Hovious v. Hovious, 2005 WL 555219, at *7 (Tex. App. – Fort Worth 2005, pet. denied) (Wisconsin marriage certificate was sufficient evidence to prove the wife’s prior marriage to another man); Texas Employers’ Ins. Ass’n v. Borum, 834 S.W.2d 395, 399 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 1992, writ denied) (“the validity of a marriage is generally determined by the law of the place where it is celebrated”);Trammell v. Trammell, 290 S.W.2d 324, 327 (Tex. App.—Waco 1956, writ refused n.r.e.) (giving full faith and credit to California marriage and California court judgment of annulment). Therefore, we believe a Texas court would recognize the valid Nevada ceremonial marriage between the Claimant and the NH.

A marriage terminates only upon death, divorce, or annulment. Estate of Claveria, 615 S.W.2d at 167; see also Garcia v. Garcia, 2012 WL 3115763, at *5 (Tex. App. – Fort Worth 2012, no pet.) (subsequent denials do not undo a marriage).As stated above, to rebut the presumption that the most recent marriage is valid, the Claimant must prove the validity of her previous marriage and its continuing validity. In re Estate of Loveless, 64 S.W.3d at 574. Texas case law explains that the party attacking the validity of the most recent marriage must present “sufficient evidence, standing alone, to negate the dissolution of the previous marriage.” Id. As we believe Texas courts would find that the Claimant has provided sufficient evidence of a valid Nevada ceremonial marriage between the NH and the Claimant beginning in November 1980, we next consider whether the Claimant has provided sufficient evidence, standing alone, to show that their marriage had not been dissolved as of the time the NH married M~ in 1983.

b. Texas Courts Would Find that Evidence Indicating that the Claimant and the NH Never Divorced Rebuts the Presumption of Validity of the Later Marriage Between the NH and M~

Evidence of the absence of official divorce or annulment records will rebut the presumption that the prior marriage was dissolved and that the most recent marriage is valid. See Davis v. Davis, 521 S.W.2d 603, 605 (Tex. 1975); see also Nguyen v. Nguyen, 355 S.W.3d 82, 89 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. denied) (to rebut the presumption of validity of last marriage, proponent of earlier marriage must prove that the first spouse was alive at the time the husband married the second wife and that neither secured a divorce or annulment). In terms of proving the absence of a divorce or annulment, courts have held that a search of county records where the parties had lived would provide reasonable and sufficient evidence of a lack of a record of divorce. See Rodriguez v. Avalos , 567 S.W.2d 85, 87 (Tex. App. – El Paso 1978, no writ) (certificate from district court clerk certifying that no divorce was ever filed demonstrated the continued existence of first marriage and rebutted the presumption of the validity of the subsequent marriage); Dockery , 209 S.W.2d at 803 (the first spouse “was not required to establish absolutely nor to a moral certainty that her marriage to [the husband] had not been dissolved, but the requirements of the law were met if she introduced sufficient evidence, standing alone, to negate such dissolution . . . She was not required to do the unreasonable and look to every jurisdiction where a proceeding might possibly be had, but to look only where such proceedings must reasonably be expected to be had under the law.”).

Although the NH did not list a marriage to the Claimant on his April 2000 application for retirement benefits, in her Form SSA-795 dated July 5, 2019, the Claimant described her relationship to the NH as “spouse,” and she stated that to her knowledge and understanding, they were still legally married. She explained that they separated in 1983, but neither wanted to pursue a divorce. The Claimant wrote that she never obtained a divorce from the NH, he never filed for divorce from her, and she provided “proof from all areas he lived that a divorce was never filed on his part.”

Regarding the areas they lived, the Claimant stated in her June 11, 2019 Form SSA-795 that they lived together from 1979 to 1980 in in Phoenix, Arizona and Litchfield Park, Arizona, both located in Maricopa County. She also stated that after they separated in 1983, she moved back to Arizona, but she did not specify exactly which city she lived in after returning to Arizona. The Claimant provided evidence from the Clerk of the Superior Court of Arizona in and for the County of Maricopa stating that the clerk’s office could not locate any domestic relations case initiation records for the Claimant (M~) from January XX, 1969, through May XX, 2019.

The Claimant reported that she and the NH moved from Arizona to El Paso, Texas, located in El Paso County, in 1980 where they lived together from 1980 to 1983. The Claimant provided a letter from the District Clerk for El Paso County, Texas stating that a search of civil and family index records did not reveal any civil petition regarding a divorce between the Claimant and the NH (Daniel Kling v. Mary Kling) from 1980 through the present.

In her July 5, 2019 Form SSA-795, the Claimant wrote that after they separated in 1983, the NH remained in El Paso, Texas and lived in Plano, Texas, which is located in Collin County. The NH’s obituary reflects that he was still living in Plano, Texas at the time of his death in 2017.[14] As noted, a letter from the District Clerk for El Paso County, Texas stated that a search of civil and family index records did not reveal any civil petition regarding a divorce between the Claimant and the NH (Daniel Kling v. Mary Kling) from 1980 through the present. In addition, the Claimant provided a letter from the District Clerk for the District Court of Collin County, Texas stating that the clerk’s office could not locate anyrecords for the Claimant (Mary Kling).

The Claimant also stated that after they separated, at some point, she moved to Michigan, though she did not specify exact cities or dates. We note that the Claimant’s Michigan driver’s license issued in December 2015 and her May 2019 application for widow’s benefits both list her address in Howell, Michigan, which is located in Livingston County.[1] She provided evidence from the Livingston County, Michigan Circuit Court Clerk stating that a search revealed no court records for the Claimant (M~) or the NH (D~) from 1980 through the present. [15] We also recognize that the Claimant’s Form SSA-795 dated July 5, 2019, lists her address in Edmond, Oklahoma.

Thus, the Claimant has provided evidence showing no record of a divorce between the NH and the Claimant in El Paso County, Texas; Collin County, Texas; Maricopa County, Arizona; and Livingston County, Michigan. A party attempting to rebut the presumption of the validity of a last marriage is not required to prove the nonexistence of a divorce in every jurisdiction where proceedings could have been possible; it is only necessary to rule out those proceedings where the parties might have been reasonably expected to pursue them. See Davis, 521 S.W.2d at 605. We believe a Texas court would find that the absence of divorce records in the two Texas counties where the NH lived (El Paso and Collin) and in the counties in Arizona and Michigan where the Claimant has indicated that she lived after their separation is sufficient evidence that the Claimant and the NH were never divorced. SeeBailey-Mason v. Mason, 122 S.W.3d 894, 898 (Tex. App. – Dallas, 2003, pet. denied) (presumption of validity of last marriage may be rebutted by evidence which negates dissolution of the previous marriage, and “[s]uch evidence need not be established absolutely or to a moral certainty”).

CONCLUSION

We believe that a Texas court would find that the Claimant has proven that she was validly married to the NH at the time of the NH’s death in September 2017. Therefore, we believe that the agency may reasonably conclude that the Claimant is the NH’s widow under the Act for Title II widow’s benefit purposes.[16]

C. PR 18-003 Status of Claimant's Marriages for Widow's Benefits -Texas State Law

Date: October 11, 2017

1. Syllabus

The number holder (NH) died while domiciled in Texas; therefore, we look to Texas law to determine if the Claimant is the NH’s widow. Under the Texas law, the Claimant and the NH had a valid ceremonial marriage at the time of the NH’s death in July 2004. Although they had filed for divorce, the court dismissed their divorce action for want of prosecution in 1995. This meant the Claimant and NH were not legally divorced and as a result, her March 2004 ceremonial marriage to her current spouse was void. The Claimant’s marriage to the NH did not end until the NH’s death in July 2004. The Claimant and her current spouse have a valid Texas common law which produces the same legal consequences as a ceremonial marriage and the presumption of the validity of the most recent marriage is one of the strongest presumptions under Texas law.

Because the Claimant had a valid, subsequent common-law marriage to her current spouse since 2005, she was not unmarried at the time she applied for widow’s benefits in 2016. Therefore, the Claimant does not meet this requirement for entitlement to widow’s benefits on the NH’s account.

2. Opinion

QUESTION PRESENTED

The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to your request for our opinion regarding the possible entitlement of R~ (R~) to widow’s insurance benefits as the widow of J~, the deceased number holder (NH). See 42 U.S.C. § 402(e)(1) (entitlement to widow’s insurance benefits). For determining whether R~ is the NH’s widow as section 216(c) of the Social Security Act (Act) defines, you asked whether under Texas law, R~ and the NH were validly married at the time of the NH’s death. See 42 U.S.C. § 416(c), (h)(1)(A)(i). For widow’s benefits on the NH’s record, R~ must also be unmarried and thus, you also asked us to determine the status of R~’s subsequent marriage to her second alleged spouse, M~ (M~). See 42 U.S.C. § 416(e)(1)(A). Specifically, you asked whether under Texas law R~ and M~ had a valid common-law marriage and if so, the effective date of when such marriage began.

ANSWER

Based on the evidence submitted, we believe that there is legal support for the agency to find that under Texas law R~ and the NH had a valid ceremonial marriage at the time of the NH’s death in July 2004. Although they had filed for divorce, the court dismissed their divorce action for want of prosecution in 1995. Therefore, R~’s marriage to the NH did not end until the NH’s death on July XX, 2004.

Although R~’s subsequent March XX, 2004 ceremonial marriage to M~ in Nevada was void because R~ was still married to the NH at that time, we believe that there is legal support for the agency to find that after the NH’s death and upon moving to Texas in 2005, R~ and M~ entered into a valid common-law marriage under Texas law effective sometime in 2005 when they began living as husband and wife in Texas. Because R~ and M~ have a valid common-law marriage, R~ was not unmarried at the time she applied for widow’s benefits on the NH’s record in 2016.

BACKGROUND

The evidence provided shows that R~ has had three purported marriages, as described below:

A. R~’s 1985 Ceremonial Marriage to the NH in Texas

R~ provided a copy of a completed and recorded Texas marriage license and certificate, which stated that she and the NH married in a ceremony on June XX, 1985 in E~ County, Texas. In 1995, the NH filed for divorce from R~. The evidence contains a copy of a Dismissal Order for Lack of Prosecution signed October XX, 1995 (and filed November XX, 1995), from the 34th District Court of E~ County, Texas showing that the divorce petition between R~ and the NH was dismissed after neither the parties nor their attorneys appeared for trial. The District Clerk for E~ County wrote a letter dated September XX, 2016, certifying that she searched the civil index records for the dates from 1985 to 2004 and found that the divorce case between the NH and R~ was closed with an Order for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution on November XX, 1995. R~ stated she believed she was divorced from the NH because he gave her divorce papers to sign and did not learn that the court dismissed the divorce petition until she tried to obtain proof of the divorce when she was buying a house in 2013. On July XX, 2004, the NH died domiciled in Texas.

B. R~’s Purported Ceremonial Marriage to M~ in Nevada

On March XX, 2004, R~ entered into a ceremonial marriage with M~ in Nevada under the belief that she and the NH were divorced. She provided a copy of a Nevada certified abstract of marriage record showing that she and M~ married in a solemnized marriage ceremony in C~ County, Nevada on March XX, 2004. They apparently lived in Arizona at this time from March 2004 until August 2004, but married in a ceremony in Nevada. R~ and M~ moved to L~, California in 2004, and later moved to E~, Texas in 2005, where they continue to live.

C. R~’s Subsequent Purported Common-Law Marriage to M~ in Texas

R~ submitted a SSA-754 Statement of Marital Relationship, which she competed in February 2017, stating that she and M~ began living together as husband and wife in March 2004. She stated that they lived together as husband and wife, considered themselves to be married, and referred to each other as husband and wife. In addition, R~ stated that from March 2004 to August 2004, she and M~ lived together as husband and wife in M~ Arizona, and that from August 2004 to sometime in 2005, R~ and M~ lived as husband and wife in L~, California. Beginning at some point later in 2005, R~ and M~ began living as husband and wife in E~, Texas, where they continue to reside together in 2017. She listed her address as E~, Texas. She reported that they opened joint bank accounts showing themselves as married, they had insurance policies showing that they were married, and they filed tax returns as a married couple.

M~ also submitted a SSA-754, which he completed in February 2017, stating and he and R~ lived together as husband and wife, considered themselves to be married, and referred to each other as husband and wife. He stated that they began living together as husband and wife in March 2004 in Arizona, then they lived together in California from 2004 to 2005, and then they lived together in E~, Texas from 2005 until 2017. He also stated that they filed tax returns as a married couple, opened joint bank accounts as a married couple, and have life insurance policies showing they are married. He listed the same home address as R~ in E~, Texas.

ANALYSIS

A. Federal Law: Entitlement to Widow’s Insurance Benefits Under the Act

A claimant is entitled to widow’s insurance benefits under Title II of the Act if, among other things, she shows that she is the widow of a person who died a fully insured individual, that their marriage lasted nine months immediately before the insured died, and that she is unmarried. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 402(e)(1), 416(c); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.335(a)(1) (you are married and your marriage lasted for at least 9 months), (e) (you are unmarried), 404.345 (your relationship as a surviving spouse under state law) Thus, R~ must show that she is the NH’s widow, that they were married for at least 9 months immediately before the NH died in July 2004, and that she is unmarried.

The agency will determine whether an applicant is an insured individual’s widow by determining if the courts of the state in which the insured individual had a permanent home at the time of death “would find that such applicant and such insured individual were validly married” at the time such insured individual died, or if, under application of that state’s intestate succession laws, the applicant would be able to inherit a spouse’s share of the insured’s personal property. See 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(1)(A); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.344, 404.345. Permanent home means the true and fixed home or legal domicile of the insured individual. 20 C.F.R. § 404.303. Because the NH was domiciled in Texas at the time he died, we look to Texas law to determine whether R~ is the NH’s widow.

B. Texas State Law: R~’s Marriages to the NH and to M~

1. R~ Was Validly Married to the NH at the Time of His Death in July 2004

In Texas, marriages may be either ceremonial or informal. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 2.001 – 2.602; Russell v. Russell, 865 S.W.2d 929, 931-33 (Tex. 1993) (“[c]ommon law marriages have been recognized in Texas since 1847”). A Texas common-law marriage produces the same legal consequences as a ceremonial marriage. Whaley v. Peat, 377 S.W.2d 855, 857 (Tex. Civ. App. - Houston 1964, writ ref’d n.r.e). Here, there is evidence of R~’s ceremonial marriage to the NH in Texas in 1985, her ceremonial marriage to M~ in Nevada in March 2004, and a common-law marriage to M~ in Texas in 2005. When two or more marriages of a person to different spouses are alleged, Texas law presumes the validity of the most recent marriage until the validity of the prior marriage is proven. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 1.102. The presumption of the validity of the most recent marriage is one of the strongest presumptions under Texas law. See Texas Employer’s Ins. Ass’n. v. Elder, 282 S.W.2d 371, 373 (Tex. 1955). The burden is on the party attacking the validity of the most recent marriage, who must establish both the existence of the prior marriage and its continuing validity at the time of the later alleged marriage and must introduce sufficient evidence, standing alone, to negate the dissolution of the prior marriage. See Estate of Claveria v. Claveria, 615 S.W.2d 164, 165 (Tex. 1981); In re Estate of Loveless, 64 S.W.3d 564, 574 (Tex. App. – Texarkana 2001, no pet.).

Here, R~s March 2004 ceremonial marriage to M~ is her most recent marriage and therefore, is presumed valid. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 1.103 (Texas law applies to persons married elsewhere who are domiciled in this state). However, as presented above, the evidence indicates that R may still have been married to the NH at the time she married M~ in March 2004. Under Texas law, a marriage is void if entered into when either party has an existing marriage to another person that has not been dissolved by legal action or terminated by the other spouse’s death. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 6.202(a); see also Romano v. Newell Recycling of San Antonio, L.P., 2008 WL 227974 at *3 (Tex. App.-San Antonio January 30, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“This rule rendering the subsequent marriage void applies whether the marriage is ceremonial or common law.”); Phillips v. The Dow Chemical Company, 186 S.W.3d 121, 127 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (“Thus, a marriage entered into while one party is married to another person is void from the outset as a matter of law.”). Therefore, we consider whether R~ and the NH were validly married and remained married at the time she later entered into this ceremonial marriage with M~ in March 2004, such that her ceremonial marriage to M~ was void.

Here, the evidence indicates that R~ and the NH entered into a ceremonial marriage in Texas. A ceremonial marriage requires parties to the marriage to obtain a marriage license from a county clerk, participate in a marriage ceremony an authorized person performed, and return the marriage license after the ceremony to the county clerk, who then records the completed marriage license and mails the certified copy to the married couple. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 2.202, 2.203(a), 2.206(a), 2.208(a). The recorded marriage license with the completed marriage certificate is proof of a valid marriage. See Black v. Shell Oil Co., 397 S.W.2d 877, 881 (Tex. Civ. App. - Texarkana 1965, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Jones v. State, 17 S.W.2d 1053, 1056 (Tex. Crim. App. 1928); see also Simpson v. Simpson, 380 S.W.2d 855, 858 (Tex. Civ. App. – Dallas 1964, writ ref’d n.r.e) (“It has long been the established law of Texas that a ceremonial marriage entered into in accordance with legal forms will raise the presumption, or inference of its legality.”).

As described above in the background section, the evidence provided shows R~ and the NH had a valid ceremonial marriage in Texas that began in 1985 and continued until the time of the NH’s death in July 2004. R~ and the NH’s 1985 recorded Texas marriage license with the completed marriage certificate is proof of a valid marriage. See Black v. Shell Oil Co., 397 S.W.2d at 881; see also Simpson v. Simpson, 380 S.W.2d at 858 (“It has long been the established law of Texas that a ceremonial marriage entered into in accordance with legal forms will raise the presumption, or inference of its legality.”). Once a marriage exists, it may be terminated only by death, a court decree of divorce, or annulment. Estate of Claveria v. Claveria, 615 S.W.2d 164, 167 (Tex. 1981); Tatum v. Tatum, 476 S.W.2d 629, 631 (Tex. Civ. App. – Fort Worth, 1972, writ dsm’d w.o.j.). The information you provided shows that R~ believed she later divorced the NH because the NH gave her divorce papers that she signed. However, the evidence also shows that the court dismissed the NH’s divorce petition for want of prosecution and therefore, did not render a final judgment of divorce. Because there was no timely challenge to this dismissal of the divorce action, the order of dismissal became final. See Pollard v. Pollard, 316 S.W.3d 246, 251 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2010, no pet.) (the court properly dismissed the divorce action after the spouse had died and with no timely challenge to the dismissal, the order of dismissal became final). R~ stated that she did not learn that the divorce petition was dismissed until she bought a house in 2013 and after she married M~ in March 2004 in a ceremonial marriage. Under Texas law, evidence that divorce proceedings were instituted during a first marriage, but then dismissed for want of prosecution has been held “sufficient to overcome the presumption of validity of the subsequent marriage.” Bailey-Mason v. Mason, 122 S.W.3d 894, 898 (Tex. App. Dallas 2003, pet. denied); see Dodd v. Dodd, 17 S.W.3d 714, 716 (Tex. App. —Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.), disapproved on other grounds, 124 S.W.3d 163 (Tex. 2003). Thus, the evidence provided is sufficient to establish that R~ and the NH were validly married and never divorced, and as a result, her March 2004 ceremonial marriage to M~ was void.

Therefore, under Texas law, R~ was validly married to the NH at the time of his death in July 2004 and their marriage lasted at least nine months before the NH’s death. As such, R~ is the NH’s widow under the Act for purposes of her application for widow’s benefits on the NH’s record. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 402(e)(1), 416(c)(1), (h)(1)(A)(i); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.335(a), 404.345. However, as explained below, R~ does not meet the requirement for widow’s benefits that she was unmarried because there is legal support for the agency to reasonably conclude that she is currently in a valid common-law marriage to M~ under Texas law.

2. R~ Has a Valid Common-Law Marriage to M~

The information provided shows that while R~ and M~s 2004 ceremonial marriage was void, she entered into a subsequent common-law marriage to M~. Under Texas law, an otherwise void marriage becomes valid if, after the prior marriage has been dissolved, the parties live together as husband and wife and represent themselves to others as being married. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 6.202(b). Here, R~’s marriage to the NH terminated upon his death in July 2004, and she continued to live with M~ after this time as a married couple. To establish a valid marriage to M~ under Texas law, R~ must prove that she and M~ lived together as husband and wife and represented themselves to others as being married during the time following the NH’s death in July 2004 (and dissolution of his marriage to R~). Id. at § 6.202(b); see also Omodele v. Adams, 2003 WL 133602, at *3-4 (Tex. App – Houston [114th Dist.] 2003, no pet.) (“when a woman continues to live with a man as his wife after his divorce from a previous wife, a common-law marriage exists that may be the subject of a divorce”). In other words, they can establish a valid common-law marriage under Texas law upon dissolution of R~s marriage to the NH with his death in July 2004.

a. Overview of the Elements of a Common-Law Marriage

The elements of a valid common-law marriage under Texas law are:

(1) an agreement to be married,

(2) cohabitation in Texas as spouses, and

(3) representation, or holding out to others that they are married.

See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 2.401(a); Estate of Claveria v. Claveria, 615 S.W.2d 164, 166 (Tex. 1981); Ex parte Threet, 333 S.W.2d 361, 364 (Tex. 1960); see also Van Hooff v. Anderson, 2016 WL 193172, at *3 (Tex. App. – Amarillo Jan. 14, 2016, no pet.) (“Other than terminology used, the common law marriage requirements and the statutory requirements for an informal marriage are the same.”). A common-law marriage does not exist until a party meets all three elements, which courts determine on a case-by-case basis and on the specific facts presented. Estate of Claveria, 615 S.W.2d at 166; Nguyen v. Nguyen, 355 S.W.3d 82, 88-89 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. denied).

b. Burden of Proof: Preponderance of the Evidence

Unlike some other States, which impose a higher burden of proof on claimants who seek to prove the existence of a common-law marriage, in Texas the party seeking to prove the existence of a common-law marriage holds the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. See Tompkins v. State, 774 S.W.2d 195, 208 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987); Farrell v. Farrell, 459 S.W.3d 114, 117 (Tex. App. – El Paso 2015, no pet.); Nguyen, 355 S.W.3d at 88-89. Texas law defines that standard as the greater weight and degree of credible evidence that would create a reasonable belief in the truth of the claim. See Herrera v. Stahl, 441 S.W.3d 739, 741 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 2014, no pet.); Upjohn Co. v. Freeman, 847 S.W.2d 589, 591 (Tex. App. – Dallas 1992, no writ) (“Preponderance of the evidence means the greater weight and degree of credible evidence” and the court of appeals considers whether the “trier of fact could reasonably conclude that the existence of a fact is more probable than not”). Therefore, we must determine if R~ has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that during the time she and M~ lived together in Texas beginning in 2005 (and after the NH’s death), she and M~ agreed to be married, lived together in Texas as husband and wife, and represented to others that they were married.

R~ and M~ provided their statements regarding their common-law marriage. Although R~ did not submit any documentary evidence, under Texas law, statements alone can be sufficient to meet the preponderance of the evidence burden. See Small v. McMaster, 352 S.W.3d 280, 283-284 (Tex. App. – Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, pet. denied) (the wife’s testimony and the testimony of other witnesses was sufficient evidence of an agreement to be married). Indeed, a claimant’s statements can constitute direct evidence of the elements of a common-law marriage. See Omodele, 2003 WL 133602, at *2 (the wife’s uncontroverted testimony that she and the husband had an agreement to be married was alone sufficient to show an agreement to be married; testimony established that the parties lived together for almost 2 years and that they purchased a home and insurance together as husband and wife); Martinez v. Lopez, 2011 WL 2112806, at *5-6 (Tex. App. – Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.) (the wife’s uncontroverted testimony that they represented themselves as married to others supported the element of holding out to others); Winfield v. Renfro, 821 S.W.2d 640, 645 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, writ denied) (the wife’s testimony was direct evidence of their agreement to be married).

In addition, circumstantial evidence can prove the requisite elements of common-law marriage. Russell, 865 S.W.2d at 933. “A fact is established by circumstantial evidence when the fact may be fairly and reasonably inferred from other facts proved in the case.” Id. (quoting Dallas Co. Flood Control v. Cross, 815 S.W.2d 271, 279-80 (Tex. App. – Dallas 1991, writ denied)). The Texas Supreme Court has stated that, “proof of common-law marriage may be shown by the conduct of the parties, or by such circumstances as their addressing each other as husband and wife, acknowledging their children as legitimate, joining in conveyances as spouses, and occupying the same dwelling place.” Estate of Claveria, 615 S.W.2d at 166. “[T]he circumstances of each case [as to the elements of a common-law marriage] must be determined based upon its own facts.” Id. We consider whether the greater weight and degree of credible evidence supports a common-law marriage between R~ and M~.

c. Application of the Elements of a Common-Law Marriage

i. Elements

a. Agreement to Marry

The first element for a valid common-law marriage requires an agreement to marry. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 2.401(a)(2). The parties must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that they had a “present, immediate, and permanent marital relationship and that they did in fact agree to be husband and wife.” Eris v. Phares, 39 S.W.3d 708, 714 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, pet. denied). The parties show an agreement to be married with proof that they intended to create an immediate and permanent marital relationship, not merely a cohabitation or temporary association that either party may end at any time and not an agreement to marry in the future. See Van Hooff, 2016 WL 193172, at *3; Gary v. Gary, 490 S.W.2d 929, 932 (Tex. Civ. App. – Tyler 1973, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Perales v. Flores, 147 S.W.2d 974, 976 (Tex. Civ. App – San Antonio 1941, writ ref’d). As explained above, direct or circumstantial evidence may establish an agreement to be married. Russell, 865 S.W.2d at 931. Testimony of one of the parties to the marriage as to their agreement to be married constitutes some direct evidence of the parties’ agreement to be married. Small, 352 S.W.3d at 283-284. Evidence of cohabitation and representations to others that the parties are married may show circumstantial evidence of an agreement to be married. See Lee v. Lee, 981 S.W.2d 903, 906 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. denied).

Here, R~ and M~ clearly had an agreement to marry as they were married in a ceremonial marriage in Nevada in March 2004 and did not know that such ceremonial marriage was void until 2013. They each submitted a Statement of Marital Relationship in which they both stated that they began living together in a husband and wife relationship in March 2004 after this ceremonial marriage and continued to live together and represent to others that they were married after they moved to Texas in 2005. As such, we believe that Texas courts would find an agreement to marry and that the agency could reasonably conclude that R~ and M~ have established the first element for a valid common-law marriage under Texas law.

Furthermore, section 6.202 indicates that the critical elements for proving a valid common-law marriage upon dissolution of a prior marriage under circumstances such as the one involved here are the elements of cohabitation and representation of marriage to others, which we address next. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 6.202(b) (“The later marriage that is void under this section becomes valid when the prior marriage is dissolved, if, after the date of the dissolution, the parties have lived together as [spouses] and represented themselves to others as being married.”).

b. Cohabitation in Texas as Spouses

The second element for a valid common-law marriage requires that the couple live together in Texas as spouses. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 2.401(a)(2). R~ and M~ both stated that they have lived together as spouses in Texas from 2005 to the present. They continue today to live at the same address in E~, Texas. R~ and M~ stated that they did not live together continuously during that time, and that they had a period of separation from September 2015 to November 2015. However, courts have not required the living arrangement to be continuous. See Small v. McMaster, 352 S.W.3d 280, 284 (Tex. App. –Houston [14th Dist.] 2011 pet. denied). (‘[c]ohabitation need not be continuous for a couple to enter into a common law marriage.”). Considering their statements, we believe that there would be legal support for the agency to conclude that the greater weight and degree of credible evidence supports a reasonable belief that R~ and the NH lived together in Texas as spouses since 2005 or for the past 12 years. See Van Hooff, 2016 WL 193172, at *5 (the court found sufficient evidence to support the cohabitation element where no one disputed that they couple began living together in 1999 and continued to live together until 2011 when they separated); Romano v. Newell Recycling of San Antonio, LP, 2008 WL 227974, at *5 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 2008, no pet.) (finding “extensive evidence of cohabitation” where witnesses testified that the couple lived together for around nine years and it did not appear that the husband left the wife for more than a month or two at a time and that he left only during times the couple was fighting). As such, we believe that Texas courts would find cohabitation as spouses in Texas and that the agency could reasonably conclude that R~ and M~ have established the second element for a valid common-law marriage under Texas law.

c. Representation to Others as Married

The third element for a valid common-law marriage requires that the couple held out to the public, or represented to others while living in Texas, that they were married. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 2.401(a)(2). Representation of the marriage to others, or holding out to the public as being married, can be shown through the “conduct and actions of the parties.” Eris, 39 S.W.3d at 715. Spoken words are not necessary to prove this element; rather, the focus is upon whether the couple had a reputation for being married. Id. Occasional introductions as husband and wife are not enough to satisfy the holding out requirement, and there is no such thing as a secret common-law marriage. Threet, 333 S.W.2d at 364; Winfield, 821 S.W.2d at 648-51. Instead, Texas law requires that the couple “consistently [conduct] themselves as husband and wife in the public eye or that the community [view] them as married.” Van Hooff, 2016 WL 193172, at *5. “[T]he jurisprudence in Texas strictly construes the holding out element and has held that marriage is more than a contract; it is a ‘status’ in the community, a general reputation, a public and open holding out that the parties are man and wife.” Id. at *6.

Here, the evidence shows that R~ changed her name to M~’s last name after she and M~ married. R~ and M~ also both stated that they had designated themselves as spouses and married in joint tax returns, a joint bank account for at least ten years, and a life insurance policy since 2015. R~ and M~ also stated that they introduced each other as husband and wife, and that their relatives and friends knew of their relationship. This evidence is sufficient to establish their status in the community as a married couple. See In re Estate of Giessel, 734 S.W.2d 27, 30-31 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (the couple had lived together as husband and wife for 20 years, the husband represented to many people in the community that the woman was his wife, and the couple had a reputation in the community for being married); Tatum, 476 S.W.2d at 630 (filing joint tax returns, opening a joint checking account, designating a spouse on life insurance policy, and holding themselves out to their community as being married all constituted sufficient evidence of a common-law marriage). We believe that Texas courts would find that they represented to others that they were married in Texas and that the agency could reasonably conclude that R~ and M~ have established the third element for a valid common-law marriage under Texas law.

ii. The Totality of the Evidence

In sum, we believe a court would find under Texas law that R~ and M~ proved a subsequent valid common-law marriage. Thus, we believe there is legal support for the agency to conclude that the greater weight and degree of credible evidence in their statements establishes that R~ and M~ had a common-law marriage that began after the dissolution of R~’s marriage to the NH at the time of the NH’s death in July 2004 and upon continuing their relationship in Texas in 2005. Although they also stated later in their 2017 statements to the agency that they believed they were not legally married once they learned in 2013 that R~ had not been divorced from the NH at the time of their March 2004 ceremonial marriage, this subsequent belief based on a misunderstanding of the law does not disprove or invalidate an otherwise valid common-law marriage under Texas law. In re Estate of Giessel, 734 S.W.2d at 31 (the wife’s representations in documents that she was single went “to the weight of the evidence” and did not “negate a marriage, as a matter of law”). They were living as a married couple in Texas and under the belief that they were married for eight years from 2005 until 2013. And they continued to live together after that time and currently live together in 2017. There is no such thing as a common-law divorce. Estate of Claveria, 615 S.W.2d at 167.

Here, since R~ had a subsequent valid common-law marriage to M~, she was not unmarried at the time she applied for widow’s benefits. As such, R~ does not meet this requirement for entitlement to widow’s benefits on the NH’s account. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 402(e)(1), 416(c); 20 C.F.R. § 404.335(e) (requirement that a claimant under age 60 applying for widow’s benefits must be unmarried).

3. R~’s Common-Law Marriage to M~ Began in 2005

Because we believe that R~ has proven a subsequent valid common-law marriage to M~, we now address the effective date of their common-law marriage. A common-law marriage exists when the three elements (an agreement to be married, marital cohabitation in Texas, and representation of the marital relationship) are present. See Farrell v. Farrell, 459 S.W.3d at 117. In addition, all elements must exist at the same time. See Bolash v. Heid, 733 S.W.2d. 698, 699 (Tex. App-San Antonio 1987, no writ). In this case, R~ and the NH’s marriage was dissolved at the time of the NH’s death in July 2004. However, the information provided shows that R~ and M~ were living in Arizona and California in 2004 and 2005 and did not live together as husband and wife in Texas until they moved to E~, Texas sometime later in 2005. The three elements necessary for a valid informal marriage did not exist until sometime in 2005 when R~ and M~ began living in Texas. See Williams v. Home Indem. Co,, 722 S.W.2d 786, 788 (Tex. App. – Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, no writ) (living together and holding out in another state does not satisfy the requirements for common-law in Texas); Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 2.401(a)(2) (“they lived together in this state as husband and wife and there represented to others that they were married”) (emphasis added). Therefore, the effective date of R~ and M~’s informal marriage would be sometime in 2005 when they began living as husband and wife in Texas.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that under Texas law, R~ and the NH had a valid ceremonial marriage until the time of the NH’s death in July 2004. R~’s March 2004 ceremonial marriage to M~ was void because R~ was still married to the NH at that time. However, after the NH’s death and upon moving to Texas in 2005, R~ and M~ subsequently validated their marriage because they agreed to be married, lived as husband and wife in Texas, and represented to others that they were married. Because R~ had a valid, subsequent common-law marriage to M~ that began in 2005 when they moved to Texas, R~ was not unmarried at the time she applied for widow’s benefits in 2016. Therefore, R~ does not meet this requirement for entitlement to widow’s benefits on the NH’s account.

D. PR 17-038 Texas State Law – Status of Claimant’s Marriages for Widow’s Application

Date: February 2, 2017

1. Syllabus

The NH was domiciled in Texas at the time of his death. In order to determine whether the Claimant is entitled to benefits as the NH’s widow, we next analyze whether her marriage to the NH terminated before her subsequent marriage to her second spouse. The claimant and the NH had a valid Texas common-law marriage beginning in 1981. Texas recognizes common-law marriages. When two or more marriages of a person to different spouses are alleged, Texas law presumes the validity of the most recent marriage until the validity of the prior marriage is proven. Based on the evidence submitted, although Texas law presumes the validity of the Claimant’s last marriage to the second spouse, evidence that the Claimant and the NH never divorced rebuts this presumption. As a result, the marriage between the Claimant and the second spouse was void under Texas law and the Claimant’s marriage to the NH remained valid at the time of his death. Since the Claimant and the NH never legally divorced, the Claimant remains the NH’s widow under Texas law and for purposes of determining her entitlement to widow’s benefits under the Act.

2. Opinion

QUESTION PRESENTED

The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to your request for our opinion regarding the possible entitlement of K~ (K~) to widow’s insurance benefits as the widow of B~, the deceased number holder (NH). See 42 U.S.C. § 402(e)(1) (entitlement to widow’s insurance benefits). For determining whether K~ is the NH’s widow as section 216(c) of the Social Security Act (Act) defines, you asked whether under Texas law, K~ and the NH were validly married at the time of the NH’s death. See 42 U.S.C. § 416(c), (h)(1)(A)(i). In making this determination, you asked whether Texas law would apply a presumption of validity of the last marriage to establish that K~ is not the NH’s legal widow and whether there is sufficient evidence to rebut that presumption. You also asked us to determine the status of K~’s marriage to her second alleged spouse, J~ (J~).

ANSWER

Based on the evidence submitted, although Texas law presumes the validity of K~’s last marriage to J~, evidence that K~ and the NH never divorced rebuts this presumption. As a result, the marriage between K~ and J~ was void under Texas law and her marriage to the NH remained valid at the time of his death. Since K~ and the NH never legally divorced, she remains the NH’s widow under Texas law and for purposes of determining her entitlement to widow’s benefits under the Act.

BACKGROUND

The NH passed away on March XX, 2008, while domiciled in Texas. Following the NH’s death on March XX, 2008, K~ learned that she and the NH were never legally divorced. On April XX, 2016 , K~ filed an application for benefits on the NH’s record as his widow, and it is this claim that is the subject of this present legal opinion. In order to determine whether K~ is entitled to benefits as the NH’s widow, we next analyze whether her marriage to the NH terminated before her subsequent marriage to J~.

K~’s First Purported Common-Law Marriage to the NH and Lack of Divorce

K~ provided a Texas Declaration and Registration of Informal Marriage signed August XX, 1983 as proof that she and the NH entered into a common-law marriage on January XX, 1981 in B~, Jefferson County, Texas. The evidence contains a certified copy of a Final Decree of Divorce showing that the NH had a previous marriage that ended in March 1980 before his marriage to K~ began in 1981. K~ also submitted a SSA-754 Statement of Marital Relationship stating that beginning in 1981, she and the NH lived together as husband and wife, considered themselves to be married, and referred to each other as husband and wife. K~ indicated that at some point, she lived with another person as husband and wife, but she did not provide dates or any other details concerning the relationship. Between 1976 and 1991, K~ and the NH had four children.

In 1994, K~ filed for divorce. She stated that all the divorce documents were signed and filed with an attorney. To the best of her knowledge, she received a copy of the final divorce decree, but the documents were either lost or destroyed. However, when she attempted to find proof of the divorce, she learned that their divorce action had been dismissed. The evidence contains a certified copy of a September 1995 Dismissal for Lack of Prosecution from the 279th District Court of Jefferson County, Texas showing that the divorce action between K~ and the NH was dismissed after neither party nor their attorneys appeared for trial. In November 2016, the agency contacted the Jefferson County, Texas district clerk’s office and found no record of a divorce between K~ and the NH from 1981-1998.

According to your request, the NH’s prior disability application alleged that his marriage to K~ ended on March XX, 1994. However, K~ is listed as the NH’s surviving spouse on his 2008 Texas Certificate of Death.

K~’s Second Purported Ceremonial Marriage to J~

On June XX, 1994, K~ entered into a ceremonial marriage with J~ under the belief that she and the NH were divorced. She provided a copy of a Texas marriage license showing that she and J~ married in a solemnized marriage ceremony in Beaumont, Jefferson County, Texas on June XX, 1994. K~ and J~ had one child, who was born on February XX, 1997. They divorced on March XX, 2004. K~ provided the agency with a certified copy of their Final Decree of Divorce.

ANALYSIS

A. Entitlement to Widow’s Insurance Benefits Under the Act

A claimant is entitled to widow’s insurance benefits under Title II of the Act if, among other things, she shows that she is the widow of a person who died a fully insured individual and that her marital relationship to the insured individual lasted for at least 9 months immediately before the insured died. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 402(e)(1), 416(c); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.335(a)(1) (relationship must have lasted for at least 9 months), 404.345 (your relationship as a surviving spouse under state law), 404.704 (your responsibility for giving evidence), 404.709 (preferred evidence), 404.723 (when evidence of marriage is required), 404.726 (preferred evidence of common-law marriage). Thus, K~ must establish the requisite marital relationship with the NH by showing that she is the NH’s surviving spouse, or widow, and that they were married for at least 9 months immediately before the NH died in March 2008. See 42 U.S.C. § 416(c)(1); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.335(a), 404.344-404.346.

The agency will determine whether an applicant is an insured individual’s surviving spouse, or widow, by determining if the courts of the state in which the insured individual had a permanent home at the time of death “would find that such applicant and such insured individual were validly married” at the time such insured individual died, or if, under application of that state’s intestate succession laws, the applicant would be able to inherit a spouse’s share of the insured’s personal property. See 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(1)(A); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.344, 404.345. Permanent home means the true and fixed home or legal domicile of the insured individual. 20 C.F.R. § 404.303. Because the NH was domiciled in Texas at the time he died, we look to Texas law to determine whether the NH and K~ were validly married, and if not, whether she would be able to inherit a spouse’s share of the NH’s property under Texas intestate succession laws.

B. Under Texas Law, K~ has Proven that She had a Valid Marriage to the NH at the Time of the NH’s Death in 2008, under 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(1)(A)(i)

1. Texas State Law on Common-Law Marriage and Marriage Presumptions

The basis for K~’s claim is that she and the NH had a valid Texas common-law marriage beginning in 1981. Texas recognizes common-law marriages. See Russell v. Russell, 865 S.W.2d 929, 931-33 (Tex. 1993) (“[c]ommon law marriages have been recognized in Texas since 1847”); Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 2.401(a) (statutory recognition of common-law marriage and proof required to show such marriage). A Texas common-law marriage produces the same legal consequences as a ceremonial marriage. Whaley v. Peat, 377 S.W.2d 855, 857 (Tex. Civ. App.--Houston 1964, writ ref’d n.r.e).

A man and woman may prove a valid common-law marriage by showing (1) an agreement to be married, (2) cohabitation in Texas as husband and wife, and (3) proof of representation to others that they are married. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 2.401(a)(2); see also Russell, 865 S.W.2d at 931-33. The party seeking to prove the existence of a common-law marriage holds the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, which is defined as “the greater weight and degree of credible evidence.” See Tompkins v. StatE, 774 S.W.2d 195, 207 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987); Farrell v. Farrell, 459 S.W.3d 114, 117 (Tex. App. – El Paso 2015, no pet.); Nguyen v. Nguyen, 355 S.W.3d 82, 88-89 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. denied). The elements of common-law marriage—an agreement to be married, marital cohabitation in Texas, and representation of the marital relationship to others—are determined on a case-by-case basis. Estate of Claveria v. Claveria, 615 S.W.2d 164, 166 (Tex. 1981). Section 2.402 of the Texas Family Code provides that the parties to a common-law marriage may execute a Declaration of Informal Marriage on a form prescribed by the bureau of vital statistics and provided by the county clerk. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 2.402. This declaration affirms the elements, described above, of a common-law marriage. Id. A Declaration of Informal Marriage recorded by the county clerk is prima facie evidence of the marriage of the parties. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 2.404(d).

Here, two purported marriages are at issue -- K~’s 1981 common-law marriage to the NH and her 1994 ceremonial marriage with J~. Under Texas law, a marriage is void if entered into when either party has an existing, undissolved marriage. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 6.202(a); Phillips v. The Dow Chemical Company, 186 S.W.3d 121, 127 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (“Thus, a marriage entered into while one party is married to another person is void from the outset as a matter of law.”). “This rule rendering the subsequent marriage void applies whether the marriage is ceremonial or common law.” Romano v. Newell Recycling of San Antonio, L.P., 2008 WL 227974 at *3 (Tex. App.-San Antonio January 30, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.). When two or more marriages of a person to different spouses are alleged, Texas law presumes the validity of the most recent marriage until the validity of the prior marriage is proven. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 1.102. The presumption of the validity of the most recent marriage is one of the strongest presumptions under Texas law. See Texas Employer’s Ins. Ass’n. v. Elder, 282 S.W.2d 371, 373 (Tex. 1955). The burden is on the party attacking the validity of the most recent marriage, who must establish both the existence of the prior marriage and its continuing validity at the time of the later alleged marriage and must introduce sufficient evidence, standing alone, to negate the dissolution of the prior marriage. See In re Estate of Loveless, 64 S.W.3d 564, 574 (Tex. App. – Texarkana 2001, no pet.); Estate of Claveria, 615 S.W.2d at 165.

Because K~’s 1994 ceremonial marriage to J~, evidenced by a recorded Texas marriage license, is more recent than her 1981 common-law marriage to the NH, her marriage to J~ is presumed valid under Texas law. K~ bears the burden of proving that she was married to the NH at the time she married J~ and that her marriage to the NH was not dissolved. As explained below, it is our opinion that a Texas court would find that K~ has met her burden of both establishing her prior common-law marriage to the NH and its continuing validity at the time of her later ceremonial marriage to J~, rendering her marriage to J~ void.

2. K~ Has Provided Sufficient Evidence to Prove a Valid Common-Law Marriage to the NH Beginning in 1981

When an applicant applies for spousal benefits, the agency requires evidence of a marriage. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.723, 404.726; see also Program Operations Manual System (POMS) GN 00305.065 (development of common-law marriages). Here, K~ provided a Texas Declaration and Registration of Informal Marriage signed August 12, 1983 as proof that she and the NH entered into a common-law marriage on January XX, 1981 in B~, Jefferson County, Texas.

As noted above, under Texas law, Declarations of Informal Marriage recorded by the county clerk constitute prima facie evidence of the marriage of the parties. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 2.404(d). The Declaration K~ submitted appears valid, as all of the conditions of sections 2.402 and 2.404 of the Texas Family Code are met. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 2.402 (requirements for what the Declaration of Informal Marriage must contain), 2.404 (requirements for recording of Certificate or Declaration of Informal Marriage). Thus, the Declaration provides sufficient evidence that K~ and the NH entered into a valid common-law marriage in 1981. See POMS GN 00305.075 (once a signed and certified Texas Declaration and Registration of Informal Marriage is submitted, further development of the common-law relationship is unnecessary unless other facts indicate that the declaration may not be valid). We have no evidence contradicting the validity of the common-law marriage as the Declaration presents. See Colburn v. State, 966 S.W.2d 511, 514-515 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (as a “properly recorded declaration of informal marriage constitutes prima facia proof of the informal marriage . . . the trial court may find the common law marriage proven based upon the declaration alone, but evidence may be offered rebutting the existence of the marriage as sworn to or stated in the declaration.”). Given this unchallenged prima facie evidence of a valid common-law marriage, the more critical issue under these facts in addressing the presumption of the validity of K~’s most recent marriage to J~ is whether K~’s marriage to the NH terminated before her subsequent ceremonial marriage to J~.

3. K~ Has Demonstrated that Her Marriage to the NH Did Not Terminate Before Her Subsequent 1994 Marriage to J~

We find no evidence that K~ and the NH’s 1981 marriage terminated before her 1994 marriage to J~. Though the law recognizes common-law marriage, Texas law does not recognize common-law divorce. Estate of Claveria, 615 S.W.2d at 167. A subsequent ceremonial marriage does not set aside, dissolve, or annul the prior common-law marriage. Aldana v. Aldana, 42 S.W.2d 661, 665 (Tex. Civ. App. 1931), writ dismissed w.o.j. (Feb. 24, 1932). Rather, a common-law marriage, like any other marriage, only terminates at the death of one of the spouses or a court order dissolving the marriage. Estate of Claveria, 615 S.W.2d at 167. As to a dissolution of marriage, a Texas court renders a judgment of divorce when a court makes an official announcement, either in writing or orally in open court, of its decision on the matter. See In re Marriage of Joyner, 196 S.W.3d 883, 886 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, pet. denied); Bailey-Mason v. Mason, 122 S.W.3d 894, 897 (Tex. App. —Dallas 2003, pet. denied). Thus, we consider whether there is evidence that K~’s marriage to the NH dissolved by divorce.

Although K~ filed for divorce from the NH in 1994, there is no evidence showing that it resulted in a final court judgment dissolving the marriage. Rather, the divorce action between K~ and the NH was dismissed for lack of prosecution in September 1995 after neither party appeared for trial. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 165a(1) (“A case may be dismissed for want of prosecution on failure of any party seeking affirmative relief to appear for any hearing or trial of which the party had notice.”). As noted, the evidence contains a certified copy of a September 1995 Dismissal for Lack of Prosecution from the 279th District Court of Jefferson County, Texas showing that the divorce action between K~ and the NH was dismissed for want of prosecution. There is no indication that either party filed a Motion to Reinstate within the time limits prescribed by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 165a(3) (Motions to Reinstate cases dismissed for want of prosecution must be filed within 30 days after the order of dismissal is signed). Under Texas law, evidence that divorce proceedings were instituted during a first marriage, but then dismissed for want of prosecution has been held “sufficient to overcome the presumption of validity of the subsequent marriage.” Bailey-Mason, 122 S.W.3d at 898; see Dodd v. Dodd, 17 S.W.3d 714, 716 (Tex. App. —Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.), disapproved on other grounds, 124 S.W.3d 163 (Tex. 2003).

Additionally, the agency has been unable to locate any divorce records as to K~’s marriage to the NH. We have no information indicating that K~ or the NH resided anywhere other than Jefferson County, Texas. The agency conducted a search of divorce records in Jefferson County and found no record of divorce between 1981 and 1998. Evidence of the absence of official divorce or annulment records will rebut the presumption that the prior marriage was dissolved and that the most recent marriage is valid. See Davis v. Davis, 521 S.W.2d 603, 605 (Tex. 1975) (in order to rebut the presumption of validity of the most recent marriage, it is not necessary to prove the nonexistence of divorce in every jurisdiction where proceedings could have been possible; it is only necessary to rule out those proceedings where the parties might have been expected to pursue them). We also note that although the NH alleged his marriage to K~ ended in 1994 in a previous disability application, K~ is listed as his surviving spouse on his 2008 Texas Certificate of Death. Thus, for purposes of rebutting the validity of K~’s subsequent marriage to J~, the evidence provided is sufficient to establish that K~ and the NH never divorced.

Based on the foregoing evidence, we conclude a Texas court would find that the common-law marriage between K~ and the NH did not end until the NH’s death in March 2008. See Estate of Claveria, 615 S.W.2d at 167. As a result, K~’s subsequent 1994 ceremonial marriage to J~ was void. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 6.202(a). Under Texas law, K~ and the NH had a valid common-law marriage that began in 1981 and continued until the time of the NH’s death in 2008. Therefore, K~ is the NH’s legal widow for purposes of her application for widow’s benefits on the NH’s record. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 402(e)(1), 416(c)(1), (h)(1)(A)(i); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.335(a), 404.345.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that K~ has successfully rebutted the presumption under Texas law that her later ceremonial marriage to J~ was valid by proving a valid common-law marriage to the NH that was never dissolved by divorce. As such, K~’s marriage to J~ was void and she was validly married to the NH at the time of his death in 2008. K~ is the NH’s legal widow under Texas law for purposes of determining her entitlement to widow’s insurance benefits on the NH’s record.

Traci B. Davis

Acting Regional Chief Counsel

By: Tracey Wirmani

Assistant Regional Counsel

E. PR 09-106 Texas State Law When More Than One Person Claims To Be Surviving Spouse (Number Holder (NH), M~)

Date: May 13, 2009

1. Syllabus

The agency received competing claims for surviving spouse's benefits. Once evidence is presented that the previous marriage was not dissolved, determining whether the presumption of validity of the last marriage applies is a factual decision. A spouse's acknowledgment of the marriage and the births of children are factors to consider in determining whether the presumption applies. The fact that the number holder (NH) never divorced his first wife rebuts the presumption of the validity of the later marriage to the claimant. Under Texas law the marriage is considered void if it is entered into when either party has an existing marriage to another person that has not been dissolved by legal action or terminated by the death of the other spouse. The claimant reported that she was unaware that the NH was previously married. The claimant's status as a putative spouse would not permit her to inherit the NH's intestate property. Thus, she cannot qualify for surviving spouse's benefits.

2. Opinion

This memorandum is in response to your request for an opinion regarding whether Jenny L. D~ (Ms. D~) can receive surviving spouse's benefits on the Social Security record of M~, Jr. (Mr. M~). Specifically, you have asked whether the Texas presumption of the validity of the last marriage applies when Ms. D~ was the second of at least four spouses of Mr. M~ and there is no evidence of a divorce between Mr. M~ and his first alleged spouse, Minnie M~ M~ (Ms. M~). If Ms. D~ is not entitled to surviving spouse's benefits, you have asked whether she can receive surviving divorced spouse's benefits on Mr. M~'s record. In our opinion, evidence that Ms. M~ and Mr. M~ never divorced rebuts the presumption of the validity of the later marriage between Ms. D~ and Mr. M~. As a result, the marriage between Ms. D~ and Mr. M~ was void under Texas state law. Since Ms. D~ and Mr. M~ were never validly married, she is similarly ineligible for surviving divorced spouse's benefits.

As we understand the facts, Mr. M~ was entitled to Disability Insurance Benefits from May 1993 until his death, which occurred in Texas on December XX 1993. There are competing claims for surviving spouse benefits on Mr. M~'s Social Security record. The evidence you provided shows that Mr. M~ had at least four marriages.

On November XX, 1965, Mr. M~ married Ms. M~. Ms. M~ reported that she and Mr. M~ separated in 1970 or 1971. She stated that to her knowledge there was never a divorce. The Social Security Administration (agency) searches of divorce records indicated that divorce proceedings were initiated on two occasions in Galveston, Texas, but a divorce was never finalized.

On March XX, 1970, Mr. M~ married Ms. D~. According to Ms. D~, she and Mr. M~ separated in 1971. She reported that she never divorced Mr. M~ and that Mr. M~ never notified her that he divorced her. Agency searches of divorce records produced no evidence of a divorce between Mr. M~ and Ms. D~.

On December XX, 1974, Mr. M~ married Annie D. H~ (Ms. H~). A child, L~ (L~), was born during the marriage. The agency indicates that it received evidence that Mr. M~ and Ms. H~ divorced in June 1979 in Many, Louisiana.

On May XX, 1985, Mr. M~ married T~ (Ms. T~). The marriage ended with Ms. T~'s death on July XX, 1993.

The file contains the following documented evidence:

1) Mr. M~'s January 28, 1993, Disability Application: At the time of the application, Mr. M~ was living in Texas City, Texas. Mr. M~ stated that he was currently married to Ms. T~. He reported that he had married Ms. T~ on May XX, 1985, in Port Arthur, Texas. Mr. M~ also reported one prior marriage to Virginia (Surname Unknown). He stated that the marriage took place in Port Arthur, Texas in 1969, and that the marriage ended by divorce on an unknown date in Orange, Texas.

2) Mr. M~'s Numident: Mr. M~ was born in Pleasant Hill, Louisiana.

3) Ms. H~'s March 25, 1994, Application for Surviving Child Benefits for L~: Ms. H~ stated that she and Mr. M~ married in June 1974 in Center, Texas, and divorced about June 1979 in Many, Louisiana. During the marriage, L~ was born on October XX, 1975, in Seattle, Washington. The agency reviewed divorce papers listing L~ as a child of Mr. M~ and Ms. H~.

4) Ms. M~'s January 30, 2002, Application for Widow's Benefits: At the time of her application, Ms. M~ was living in Bossier City, Louisiana. Ms. M~ stated that she and Mr. M~ married on November XX, 1965, in Orange City, Texas. She reported that Mr. M~ had one prior marriage that ended in divorce, but she did not have any further information about the prior marriage. Ms. M~ stated that she and Mr. M~ lived together for eight or nine years before separating. She indicated that she never filed for divorce and never received any notice that Mr. M~ had filed for a divorce.

5) Ms. D~'s August 8, 2005, Disability Application: At the time of her application, Ms. D~ was living in Franklin, Louisiana. Ms. D~ stated that she married Mr. M~ in January 1970 in Orange, Texas. She stated they had separated for 20 years, but had not divorced. She did not know his social security number or have enough information to permit the agency to locate Mr. M~'s record at that time.

6) Ms. D~'s April 2, 2007, Disability Application: Ms. D~'s address had not changed. She stated that she had Mr. M~ had married in January 1964 in E~, Texas, and had not divorced. Ms. D~ supplied no proof of the marriage.

7) Ms. D~'s July 18, 2007, Retirement Application: Ms. D~'s address had not changed. She stated that she and Mr. M~ married in May 1970. Ms. D~ had no proof of marriage. She reported that Mr. M~ had shot her 25 years before, and she had not seen him since. She stated that to the best of her knowledge she and Mr. M~ were still legally married.

8) Ms. D~'s and Mr. M~'s Marriage Certificate: On March XX, 1970, Mr. M~ and Ms. D~ were married before a Justice of the Peace in Orange, Texas.

9) Ms. D~'s Remarks: Ms. D~ stated that she met Mr. M~ in Orange, Texas, around 1968, and he did not state that he had ever been married. She stated that Mr. M~ shot her in Franklin, Louisiana, where they were visiting. Ms. D~ reported that afterward she moved to New Orleans, Louisiana, to get away from him. Ms. D~ stated that Mr. M~ was caught and brought back to Franklin, Louisiana, for trial. She stated she did not know what happened at trial. Ms. D~ reported that she did not divorce him, and Mr. M~ never notified her that he divorced her. The agency noted that Mr. M~ died domiciled in Texas City, Texas.

10) Report of Contact with Ms. M~: Ms. M~ stated that she married Mr. M~ in Orange, Texas, on November XX, 1965. She reported that they moved to Galveston, Texas, where their two children were born. Ms. M~ stated that they moved to S~, Louisiana, around 1969. She reported that she and Mr. M~ separated in 1970 or 1971. Ms. M~ reported that she then moved to Homer, Louisiana, and she believed that Mr. M~ moved to Orange, Texas. She stated that she saw Mr. M~ in the late 1970s or early 1980s in Shreveport, Louisiana, where he was then living and working. Ms. M~ stated that Mr. M~ told her they were still married and that he had no intention of ever seeking a divorce from her. Ms. M~ indicated that Mr. M~ did not mention any other marriages. She indicated that her sister, who lived in Orange, Texas, told her Mr. M~ later moved back to Orange, Texas. Ms. M~ reported that she moved to Bossier City, Louisiana in October 1990. She stated as far as she knew, she and Mr. M~ were still married at the time of his death.

11) Divorce Records Searches: The agency requested divorce records searches between Mr. M~ and Ms. M~ from 1965 through 1993 and between Mr. M~ and Ms. D~ from 1970 through 1993 in the following areas:

a) Homer, Louisiana: Neither the Claiborne Parish nor Webster Parish Clerks of Courts had records of divorce between Mr. M~ and Ms. M~ or Ms. D~.

b) Shreveport, Louisiana: The Parish clerk found no divorce records.

c) Bossier City, Louisiana: The Parish clerk found no divorce records.

d) Starks, Louisiana: No divorce documents were found for either party.

e) Pleasant Hill, Louisiana: The Sabine Parish Clerk of Court verified that there were no records of divorce between Mr. M~ and Ms. M~ or Ms. D~.

f) Galveston, Texas: There were two divorce actions filed between Mr. M~ and Ms. M~, but neither party followed through. Thus, the divorce was never finalized. There was no record of a divorce between Mr. M~ and Ms. D~.

g) Orange County, Texas: There was no record of a divorce for either party.

h) Seattle, Washington: The agency was unable to obtain records from King County. The agency concluded that it was unlikely that Mr. M~ would have obtained a divorce with any of the parties in Seattle, Washington, and, thus, did not request further search of these records.

i) Jefferson County, Texas: There was no record of a divorce for either party.

12) Divorce Records Search: The agency requested divorce records searches between only Mr. M~ and Ms. M~ from 1965 through 1993 in the following areas:

a) Center, Texas: There was no record of divorce in Shelby County.

b) Franklin, Louisiana: There was no record of divorce in St. Mary Parish.

13) Divorce Records Search: The agency requested divorce record searches between only Mr. M~ and Ms. D~ from 1970 through 1993 in the following areas and counties:

a) Franklin, Louisiana: There was no record of divorce in St. Mary Parish.

b) Center, Texas: There was no record of divorce in Shelby County.

c) Rayne, Louisiana: The Lafayette Perish Clerk of Court found no divorce record.

d) Orleans Parish, Louisiana: There were no divorce records located.

14) Marriage Records: The agency requested the following marriage record searches:

a) Shelby County, Texas: Mr. M~ and Ms. H~ married on December XX, 1974.

b) Orange County, Texas, Online Search: Mr. M~ and Ms. D~ married on March XX, 1970.

c) Orange County, Texas, Volume Search: Mr. M~ and Ms. M~ married on November XX, 1965.

The Social Security Act provides that a claimant is entitled to surviving spouse's benefits if she is the number holder's widow and meets the other requirements for eligibility. 42 U.S.C. § 402(e)(1) (2009); 20 C.F.R. § 404.335(a) (2009)./ A claimant can meet this relationship requirement if she and the number holder were validly married under state law at the time the number holder died. See 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(1)(A)(i) (2009); 20 C.F.R. § 404.345 (2009). In addition, a claimant can meet the relationship requirement if she would be able to inherit a wife's share of the number holder's personal property under state law if the number holder were to die without leaving a will. 20 C.F.R. § 404.345 (2009). The controlling law is the law of the state where the number holder had a permanent home at the time of his death. Id. Permanent home means the number holder's true and fixed home or legal domicile. 20 C.F.R. § 404.303 (2009). In this case, Mr. M~ died while domiciled in Texas. Thus, Texas law is controlling.

Every marriage entered into in Texas is presumed valid unless expressly void or expressly voidable and the marriage is annulled. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 1.101 (Vernon 2009). Under Texas law, a marriage is void if it is "entered into when either party has an existing marriage to another person that has not been dissolved by legal action or terminated by the death of the other spouse." Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 6.202 (Vernon 2009). Here, Ms. D~'s marriage to Mr. M~ was later than Ms. M~'s marriage to Mr. M~. The evidence shows Ms. D~ married Mr. M~ on March XX, 1970, in Orange County, Texas. The agency's search of divorce records uncovered no evidence of a divorce between Ms. D~ and Mr. M~. However, the agency obtained evidence that Ms. M~ married Mr. M~ five years before his marriage to Ms. D~, on November XX, 1965, in Orange County, Texas. The agency found no record of a finalized divorce between Ms. M~ and Mr. M~. Thus, Ms. D~ and Mr. M~ entered into their marriage at a time when Mr. M~ was married to Ms. M~. This preexisting marriage between Ms. M~ and Mr. M~, if sufficiently proven, would render the later marriage between Ms. D~ and Mr. M~ void.

The presumption of the validity of the most recent marriage is one of the strongest presumptions under Texas law. Texas Employer's Ins. Ass'n. v. Elder, 282 S.W.2d 371, 373 (Tex. 1955). When two or more marriages of a person to different spouses are alleged, the most recent marriage is presumed to be valid as against each prior marriage until the validity of a prior marriage is proven. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 1.102 (Vernon 2009). The presumption increases over time, by the spouses' acknowledgments of the marriage, and by the births of children. See Texas Employer's Ins. Ass'n, 282 S.W.2d at 373. The burden of proving that the most recent marriage is invalid is on the party seeking to invalidate the marriage. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 1.101 (Vernon 2009). Here, we have evidence and allegations that Mr. M~ married several different spouses without obtaining a divorce. Because the agency received competing claims for surviving spouse benefits from Ms. M~ and Ms. D~, we consider the validity of these two marriages./ Because Ms. D~'s marriage to Mr. M~ is more recent than Ms. M~'s marriage to Mr. M~, Ms. M~ has the burden of proving that she was married to Mr. M~ at the time he married Ms. D~ and that neither she nor Mr. M~ obtained a divorce from the other. See Chandler v. Chandler, 991 S.W.2d 367, 393 (Tex. App. El. Paso, 1999). The agency conducted a volume search of the marriage records in Orange County, Texas, and located the marriage license for Ms. M~ and Mr. M~. In addition, the agency conducted searches of the divorce records in each Texas county or Louisiana parish where either Ms. M~ or Mr. M~ were known to reside. The agency found no divorce record. Ms. M~ was not required to "prove the non-existence of a divorce or annulment in every jurisdiction where such proceedings could have been possible, but only where the parties might reasonably have been expected to have pursued them." Medrano v. State of Texas, 701 S.W.2d 337, 341 (Tex. App. 1985). Thus, the evidence would suggest that Ms. M~ and Mr. M~ were never divorced.

Mr. M~'s statements on his disability application suggested that he had resided in the following Texas counties: Galveston, Jefferson, and Orange. He was born in Pleasant Hill, Louisiana, within Sabine Parish. The agency discovered that two divorce actions were filed in Galveston County between Mr. M~ and Ms. M~, but neither divorce was finalized. In Texas, a marriage can only be dissolved by court decree or death; there is no common-law divorce. Estate of Claveria v. Claveria, 615 S.W.2d 164 (Tex. 1981). The divorce action filings in Galveston County did not result in a court decree granting a divorce. Thus, the filings did not dissolve the marriage between Ms. M~ and Mr. M~. The agency's search of the divorce records in Jefferson County, Orange County, and Sabine Parish also established that there had been no divorce between Ms. M~ and Mr. M~.

Ms. H~' application for surviving child benefits on L~s behalf stated that she and Mr. M~ married in Center, Texas, within Shelby County, Texas. The agency found no record of divorce between Ms. M~ and Mr. M~ in Shelby County. Ms. H~ also reported that Lowanda was born in Seattle, Washington, within King County. The agency was unable to search the divorce records in King County, but concluded that it was unlikely that Mr. M~ obtained a divorce from Ms. M~ in that county. Ms. M~ was only required to prove the non-existence of a divorce in jurisdictions where the parties might reasonably have been expected to pursue them. Medrano, 701 S.W.2d at 341. According to statements the agency provided, Mr. M~ was a truck driver who traveled across the country, but there is no evidence that he changed his residence outside of Texas or Louisiana. Because there is no evidence indicating that Mr. M~ ever resided in Seattle, Washington, it would not be reasonable to expect that he would have obtained a divorce there. Thus, the unavailability of a divorce record search from King County, Washington does not affect this case.

Ms. M~ reported that she has lived in following areas: Orange County, Texas; Galveston County, Texas; Starks Parish, Louisiana; Claiborne Parish, Louisiana; Webster Parish, Louisiana; and Bossier City, Louisiana. In addition, she stated that she was aware that Mr. M~ lived in Orange County, Texas, and Bossier City/Shreveport, Louisiana, after their separation. The agency's search of these areas showed that neither party obtained a divorce in any of these jurisdictions.

Ms. D~ indicated that she and Mr. M~ had married in Orange County, Texas. As noted above, the agency's search of the divorce records in Orange County, Texas, established that neither Ms. M~ nor Mr. M~ obtained a divorce in that county. Ms. D~ stated that after Mr. M~ shot her, he was arrested and brought to jail in Franklin, Louisiana. The agency's search of divorce records in St. Mary's Parish, Louisiana, where Franklin, Louisiana, is located, showed no divorce between Ms. M~ and Mr. M~. Ms. D~ had no other information about where Mr. M~ might have lived, as she had no further contact with him.

Based on the evidence presented, we conclude that the agency has searched the divorce records in every jurisdiction where Ms. M~ or Mr. M~ might reasonably have obtained a divorce. See Medrano, 701 S.W.2d at 341. The evidence establishes that Mr. M~ was married to Ms. M~ at the time that he married Ms. D~, and that neither Mr. M~ nor Ms. M~ ever divorced the other. Once evidence is presented that the previous marriage was not dissolved, determining whether the presumption of validity of the last marriage applies is a factual decision. See Bailey-Mason v. Mason, 122 S.W.3d 894, 898 (Tex. App. 2003). Here, Mr. M~ did not acknowledge his marriage to Ms. M~ or Ms. D~ in his disability application. However, Ms. M~ reported that she spoke with Mr. M~ in the late 1970s or early 1980s and that he acknowledged that they were still married. Mr. M~ also fathered two children with Ms. M~ and no children with Ms. D~. A spouse's acknowledgments of the marriage and the births of children are factors to consider in determining whether the presumption applies. See Texas Employer's Ins. Ass'n, 282 S.W.2d at 373. We conclude that the evidence that Ms. M~ and Mr. M~ did not divorce rebuts the presumption of validity of the marriage between Ms. D~ and Mr. M~. Because the marriage between Ms. D~ and Mr. M~ was void, Ms. D~ was not Mr. M~'s spouse under Texas law.

Ms. D~ also does not alternatively qualify as Mr. M~'s surviving spouse as an individual who could inherit a wife's share of Mr. M~'s personal property under Texas intestate succession laws. 20 C.F.R. § 404.345 (2009). Even though a marriage may be void because of the existence of a prior marriage, Texas recognizes a putative marriage as giving certain property rights to a spouse that enters into the marriage in good faith. See Garduno v. Garduno, 760 S.W. 2d 735, 738-39 (Tex. App. - Corpus Christi 1988, no writ); see also Consolidated Underwriters v. Kelly, 15 S.W.2d 229 (Tex. Comm'n. App. 1929, judgm't adopted). Good faith requires that the putative spouse be unaware of the cause that prevents a valid marriage. Dean v. Goldwire, 480 S.W.2d 494, 496 (Tex. App. - Waco 1972, writ denied). Here, Ms. D~ reported that she was unaware that Mr. M~ had ever been married prior to their marriage. Thus, she could potentially qualify as a putative spouse.

Her status as a putative spouse, however, would not permit her to inherit Mr. M~'s intestate property. Under Texas law, a putative spouse is allowed the same right in property acquired during the marital relationship as if she were a lawful spouse. Davis v. Davis, 521 S.W.2d 603, 606 (Tex. 1975). However, this property right extends only to her own one-half community or joint tenancy interest in property the couple acquired during the putative marriage. It does not entitled the putative spouse to inherit any share of the decedent's one-half property interest. Hammond v. Hammond, 108 S.W. 1024 (Tex. Civ. App. 1908). Even though Ms. D~ may qualify as a putative spouse, she cannot inherit a wife's share of Mr. M~'s intestate property under Texas law. Thus, she cannot qualify for surviving spouse benefits under Mr. M~'s record.

Finally, we conclude that Ms. D~ cannot qualify for surviving divorced spouse benefits under Mr. M~'s record. An individual may be entitled to surviving divorced spouse's benefits if she is the number holder's surviving divorce spouse and meets the other requirements for eligibility. 42 U.S.C. § 402(e)(1) (2009); 20 C.F.R. § 404.336 (2009)./ A claimant can meet this relationship requirement if she and the number holder were validly married under state law or were deemed to be validly married under state law. See 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(1)(A)(i) (2009); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.336, 404.345, 404.346 (2009). The standard for the validity of a marriage under state law is the same for surviving spouse benefits and surviving divorced spouse benefits. 20 C.F.R. § 404.345 (2009). Because Ms. D~'s marriage to Mr. M~ was void under Texas state law, she cannot establish that she was ever validly married to him. Ms. D~ also cannot satisfy the requirements of a deemed valid marriage because this requires that the number holder and the deemed spouse be living in the same household at the time of the number holder's death. Ms. D~ acknowledged that she had not seen Mr. M~ for at least 25 years. Thus, she was never validly married or deemed validly married to Mr. M~ and cannot qualify for surviving divorced spouse benefits under his record.

In conclusion, it is our opinion that Ms. D~ cannot qualify for surviving spouse benefits or surviving divorced spouse benefits on Mr. M~'s record.

Michael M~

Regional Chief Counsel

By: James D. S~

Assistant Regional Counsel

F. PR 07-010 Entitlement to Widow's Benefits Where Divorce was Never Obtained and Husband Remarried

Date: October 30, 2006

1. Syllabus

Under Texas law a marriage is void if entered into when either party has an existing marriage to another person that has not been dissolved by legal action or terminated by the death of the other spouse. The presumption in favor of the validity of the most recent marriage may be rebutted by evidence which negates dissolution of the previous marriage. Determining whether the presumption applies is a factual decision. If claimant is unable to carry his/her proof, the presumption of validity attaching to NH's marriage to last wife will continue.

2. Opinion

You have asked for advice as to whether Ms. B~ can receive widow's benefits based on the Social Security record of her deceased husband, J~. Your request for advice raises two specific questions. The first is whether G~ is entitled to receive benefits as Mr. B~'s widow. If she is not, the second question is whether she can receive benefits based on Mr. B~'s Social Security record as a surviving divorced wife. Based on the facts of this case, we believe you would be justified in concluding that Ms. G~ is not entitled to widow's benefits on Mr. B~'s record.

Factual Background

The memorandum you forwarded with your request indicates that G~ (Claimant) and J~ were married on June XX, 1967, in the state of Louisiana. Mr. B~ married V~ on May XX, 1979, in L~, Texas. Mr. B~ died on March XX, 2006, and was domiciled in the state of Texas at the time of his death.

In a prior claim for disability benefits, Claimant reported that her marriage to Mr. B~ ended in divorce in January 1974. According to a statement made by Claimant in conjunction with her current claim, she and Mr. B~ lived together for 11 years and separated in 1978. Claimant reported that she was never served or notified of any divorce proceedings and that she and Mr. B~ never discussed divorce.

Field Office employees requested a search of divorce records in Harrison and Gregg counties in Texas for the years 1969 to 1979 which did not show any record of a divorce between Mr. B~ and Claimant. An internet search of the state of Texas divorce records for the same time period also showed no record of a divorce.

V~ verified that she married Mr. B~ on May XX, 1979, in L~, Texas. She stated that the marriage license was filed in M~, Texas. V~ thought Mr. B~ was previously married, but was not certain. She did not know the name of the possible previous spouse, the length of the previous marriage, or when, or if, the divorce was finalized.

Analysis

A. Is Claimant Mr. B~'s Widow?

The Social Security Act provides that an applicant is the wife or widow of an insured individual "if the courts of the State in which such insured individual. . . was domiciled at the time of death . . .would find that such applicant and such insured individual were validly married . . . at the time [the insured individual] died." 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(1)(A)(i); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.345. Because Mr. B~ was domiciled in Texas at the time of his death, Claimant will be considered his widow if Texas courts would find them validly married at the time of his death.

Every marriage entered into in Texas "is presumed to be valid unless expressly made void by Chapter 6 or unless expressly made voidable by Chapter 6 and annulled as provided by that chapter." Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 1.101 (Vernon, Westlaw through 2006 sesion). Chapter 6, section 202 provides:

a. A marriage is void if entered into when either party has an existing marriage to another person that has not been dissolved by legal action or terminated by the death of the other spouse. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 6.202 (Vernon, Westlaw through 2006 sesion). Therefore, if Mr. B~ was still married to Claimant when he married Virginia B~, his marriage to Virginia B~ is void under Texas law.

Texas law, however, presumes the validity of the most recent marriage.

When two or more marriages of a person to different spouses are alleged, the most recent marriage is presumed to be valid as against each marriage that precedes the most recent marriage until one who asserts the validity of a prior marriage proves the validity of the prior marriage.

Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 1.102 (Vernon, Westlaw through 2006 sesion). Therefore, Claimant has the burden to present evidence to overcome the presumption that Mr. B~'s marriage to Virginia B~ was valid. Chandler v. Chandler, 991 S.W.2d 367, 393 (Tex. App. El. Paso, 1999). "This presumption is one of the strongest, if not the strongest, known to law." Bailey-Mason v. Mason, 122 S.W.3d 894, 898 (Tex. App. 2003). Once evidence is presented that the previous marriage was not dissolved, determining whether the presumption applies is a factual decision. See id. Therefore, the question is whether a fact-finder would find that Claimant has produced sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption that Mr. B~'s marriage to Virginia B~ was valid.

The presumption in favor of the validity of the most recent marriage "may be rebutted by evidence which negates dissolution of the previous marriage." Id. In this case, the evidence that Claimant's marriage to Mr. B~ was never dissolved includes her 2006 statement reporting that she was never notified of any divorce proceedings and the absence of a Texas divorce decree dissolving the marriage of Claimant to Mr. B~.

Although some evidence of the absence of a divorce has been presented, the search of records is incomplete. The parties were married in and lived in Louisiana, but Louisiana divorce records have not been researched. Claimant currently lives in Kansas, and a search of those divorce records has not been completed either. Claimant is not required to "prove the non-existence of a divorce or annulment in every jurisdiction where such proceedings could have been possible, but only where the parties might reasonably have been expected to have pursued them." Medrano v. State of Texas, 701 S.W.2d 337, 341 (Tex. App. 1985). At present, the search of records is incomplete in some likely jurisdictions.

Additionally, "[t]he presumption may outweigh positive evidence to the contrary and its strength increases with the lapse of time, acknowledgement by the parties to the marriage, and the birth of children." Id. In an earlier claim for disability benefits, Claimant made a statement to the Agency that her marriage to Mr. B~ ended in divorce in 1974. Claimant's statement that she and Mr. B~ had divorced increases the strength of the presumption in favor of the validity of Mr. B~'s second marriage. Furthermore, according to Claimant's statements, she and Mr. B~ had not lived together for at least 28 years prior to his death. Mr. B~ and Virginia B~ had lived together as a married couple for over 26 years at the time of his death. The length of Mr. B~'s marriage to Virginia B~ increases the strength of the presumption of the validity of their marriage. See id.; see also Osuna v. Quintana, 993 S.W.2d 201, 210 (Tex. 1999); Cardwell v. Cardwell, 195 S.W.3d 856, 858-59 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2006) (putative spouse who acted in good faith receives the same rights in property as lawful spouse). Considering the evidence as a whole, it is reasonable to assume that a fact-finder would determine that the evidence of the absence of a divorce does not overcome the presumption that Mr. B~ and Virginia B~'s 26-year marriage was valid.

With the current evidence, a fact-finder would likely find Mr. B~'s marriage to Virginia B~ to be valid, and therefore, Virginia B~ is Mr. B~'s widow. Because Claimant would not be considered Mr. B~'s widow under Texas law, she is likewise not his widow under the Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(1)(A)(i); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.345. Based on the foregoing analysis and facts of this case, we believe Claimant, Grady B~, is not entitled to widow's benefits based on the Social Security record of James B~.

B. Is Claimant Entitled to Surviving Divorced Wife Benefits?

The Act provides that widow's and surviving divorced wives can receive widow's insurance benefits if they meet certain criteria. See 42 U.S.C.A. § 402 (e). In order to be a surviving divorced wife, one of the requirements is that the marriage must have lasted at least 10 years. See 42 U.S.C.A. § 416 (d)(2); 20 C.F.R. § 404.336. Therefore, the question is whether Claimant and Mr. B~ were married for 10 years.

Claimant has the burden of proof that she is eligible for surviving divorced spouse benefits. See 5 U.S.C.A. § 556 (d). Therefore, Claimant has the burden to prove she was married to Mr. B~ for 10 years or more. In her statement related to her claim for widow's benefits, Claimant reported that she married Mr. B~ on June XX, 1967, lived with him for 11 years, they separated in 1978, and that she did not know of any legal proceedings to dissolve their marriage. If this statement is true, Claimant and Mr. B~ were married over 10 years, and she may be a surviving divorced spouse. However, in an earlier application for disability benefits, Claimant provided a contrary statement that she and Mr. B~ were divorced in 1974. If Claimant's marriage to Mr. B~ ended in 1974, she is not eligible for surviving divorced spouse benefits because the marriage lasted less than 10 years.

Because of Claimant's inconsistent statements, we believe she has not carried her burden to prove she was married to Mr. B~ for 10 years. However, should additional evidence become available to show Claimant and Mr. B~ were married for at least 10 years, Claimant may qualify for surviving divorced spouse benefits based on Mr. B~'s record. Examples of evidence that would tend to show that Claimant and Mr. B~ remained married for 10 years include: jointly filed tax returns, insurance policies, leases, and titles or deeds showing they purchased property jointly dated after June 19, 1977. See Martin v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 875 F.2d 865, at *2 (6th Cir. 1989) (unpublished table decision); Hudes v. Callahan, No. 96 Civ. 4283(AGS) 1997 WL 570560, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 1997). In addition, development would be necessary to ensure that claimant meets the other requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 404.336 before surviving divorced spouse benefits were awarded.

Based on the foregoing analysis and facts of this case, we believe Claimant, Grady B~, is not entitled to widows' benefits or surviving divorced spouse benefits based on the Social Security record of James B~.

Frank V. S~

Regional Chief Counsel

By: Angela T~-M~

Assistant Regional Counsel


Footnotes:

[1]

The Act defines the term surviving spouse to mean a widow or widower. See Act § 216(a)(2), (c), (g), 42 U.S.C. § 416(a)(2), (c), (g).

[2]

Your legal opinion request specifically asked: (1) whether the agency can apply POMS PR 05110.048.C, PR 09-106 Texas State Law When More Than One Person Claims To Be Surviving Spouse (Number Holder (NH), M~), dated May 13, 2009, as a precedent using the Claimant’s military spouse ID as the NH’s acknowledgment of marriage; (2) if not, you asked whether the Claimant successfully rebutted the presumption of the validity of the last marriage; and (3) who is the NH’s legal widow under Texas law. Based on the specific evidence provided in the current claim, because we believe that a Texas court would find that the Claimant was validly married to the NH at the time of his death in September 2017, and thus, the agency can determine that the Claimant is the NH’s widow on this basis, it was not necessary to consider the factual issues applicable in the opinion published at PR 09-106.

[3]

The Claimant wrote that they lived together from “1979 to 1982-3,” as an estimate. The year 1983 is consistent with her later statement to the agency that she and the NH separated in 1983 (not 1982).

[4]

She wrote, “We married 1980 11-13-18.” The reference to the year 2018 appears to be a handwriting error because the Nevada marriage certificate reflects their marriage was November XX, 1980 (not 2018).

[5]

The Claimant’s Form SSA-795 dated July 5, 2019, lists her current address in Edmond, Oklahoma.

[6]

The Nevada Marriage Certificate lists the Claimant’s maiden name as “M~ F~ L~,” whereas your legal opinion request states that her maiden name is “M~ O~” and her birth name is “M~ O.~” The undersigned attorney located a copy of the Claimant’s May 2019 application for widow’s benefits via the agency’s Claims File Record Management System (CFRMS), in which the Claimant indicated that she has used the following names: M~ F~ L~; M~ F~ K~; M~F~ O~; M~ O~; and M~ F~ O~.

[7]

Seehttp://obituaries.localcremationandfunerals.com/o/kling/36618/ (last visited April 10, 2020).

[8]

A claimant must satisfy other criteria for entitlement to widow(er)’s insurance benefits that are outside the scope of this legal opinion request, which asks only about marital status. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 402(e), (f), 416(c), (g); 20 C.F.R. § 404.335.

[9]

The marriage must have lasted for at least nine months immediately before the day the insured individual died. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.335(a); POMS GN 00305.100.

[10]

Here, your request does not indicate the type of evidence Maelena submitted as proof of her marriage to the NH, nor does it specify whether she alleged a ceremonial or common-law marriage, both of which are authorized under Texas law. However, it appears that M~ and the NH had a ceremonial marriage, as she told theagency that they received a marriage license in Dallas, Texas. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 2.001 (parties desiring to enter into a ceremonial marriage must obtain a marriage license from the county clerk of any county in this state; no requirement that the wedding ceremony take place in the same Texas county where the license was issued). It also appears that she submitted valid proof of this ceremonial marriage because the agency granted her benefits as the NH’s widow effective September 2017. The agency’s regulations explain that a certificate of marriage qualifies as preferred evidence of a ceremonial marriage. 20 C.F.R. § 404.725(b)(2); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.709 (if you give us the type of evidence we have shown as preferred evidence we will generally find it is convincing evidence).

[11]

As noted in the background section of this opinion, you indicated that in her May 2019 application for benefits, the Claimant alleged that she and the NH married on January XX, 1980 in El Paso, Texas. However, all of the other evidence the Claimant submitted to the agency shows that they married on November XX, 1980 in Las Vegas, Nevada. Thus, it is unclear why the Claimant referenced a JanuaryXX, 1980 marriage in El Paso in her application. As there is no evidence to corroborate a January 1980 Texas marriage, we consider only this November 1980 Nevada marriage.

[12]

These statutory requirements for a ceremonial marriage appear to be substantively similar to the versions in effect in 1980.

[13]

We note that Texas courts appear to apply the “most significant relationship test” of the Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws in determining the validity of marriage where there is a conflict in the laws requiring such a choice-of-law analysis. See Duncan v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 665 S.W.2d 414 (Tex. 1984); Broussard v. Apfel, --- S.W.3d ----, 2019 WL 7341672, at *5 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.]2019, no pet.) (the place of celebration rule “has been all but abrogated in favor of the ‘most significant relationship’ test”); In re Estate of Loveless, 64 S.W.3d at 575; Seth v. Seth, 694 S.W.2d 459, 462-64 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1985, no writ). However, the current matter involving a Nevada ceremonial marriage that would also appear to substantially comply with Texas law on ceremonial marriages does not present an issue requiring such a choice-of-law analysis as might be necessary in other contexts, for example, in determining whether a Texas court would recognize a foreign marriage. See Texas Employers’ Ins. Ass’n v. Borum, 834 S.W.2d at 399, n. 2 (noting that “[w]hen there is no difference in the outcome between which state’s law to apply, no conflict exists and we need not apply the conflicts of laws tests.”); Williams v. Home Indem. Co., 722 S.W.2d 786, 787-88 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, no pet.) (noting that a choice-of-law analysis was not required because the application of Texas law would produce the same result).

[14]

Seehttp://obituaries.localcremationandfunerals.com/o/kling/36618/ (last visited April 10, 2020).

[15]

We have no information regarding when the Claimant moved to Oklahoma, but as noted above, both her Michigan driver’s license issued in December 2015 and her May 2019 application for widow’s benefits show her address in Howell, Michigan. Likewise, the Claimant’s February 5, 2020 request for a search of Livingston County, Michigan court records again shows her address in Howell, Michigan. Thus, it appears that the Claimant briefly moved to Oklahoma sometime after applying for benefits in May 2019, but moved back to Michigan by February 2020. However, all of this occurred after the NH’s death in Texas in September 2017, and thus divorce proceedings could not have been initiated in Oklahoma as their marriage terminated upon his death.

[16]

Your legal opinion request only asked for advice as to whether the Claimant or M~is the NH’s legal widow under Texas law for purposes of determining the Claimant’s application for benefits. As we have outlined in this opinion, we believe there is legal support for the agency to conclude that the Claimant is the NH’s legal widow. We also note that the agency could consider whether M~ may still qualify for surviving spouse’s benefits under section 216(h)(1)(B)(i) of the Act as the NH’s widow based on a deemed valid marriage. See Act 216(h)(1)(B)(i), 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(1)(B)(i); 20 C.F.R. § 404.346.


To Link to this section - Use this URL:
http://policy.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/1505110048
PR 05110.048 - Texas - 08/04/2020
Batch run: 08/04/2020
Rev:08/04/2020