QUESTION PRESENTED
For purposes of her application for widow’s insurance benefits under Title II of the
Social Security Act (Act), you asked whether the claimant R~ (Claimant) is the widow
of the deceased number holder (NH) W~, where the opposite-sex couple allegedly entered
into a domestic partnership in New Jersey and Arizona and the NH died domiciled in
Arizona on July XX, 2014.
ANSWER
We believe Arizona courts would find that the Claimant and the NH were not validly
married under Arizona law at the time of the NH’s death on July XX, 2014, and that
the Claimant could not inherit a spouse’s share under Arizona intestate succession
law based on any alleged opposite-sex domestic partnership. Therefore, we believe
there is legal support for the agency to find that the Claimant is not the NH’s widow
for purposes of her claim for Title II widow’s insurance benefits on the NH’s record.
BACKGROUND
The NH died on July XX, 2014, domiciled in Arizona. You advised that on August XX,
2019, the Claimant filed for widow’s insurance benefits alleging that she and the
NH were in an opposite-sex non-marital legal relationship. You further advised that
the Claimant alleged that she and the NH entered into an opposite-sex domestic partnership
in Hazelton, New Jersey on October XX, 1976, and that they were living together in
Arizona at the time of the NH’s death on July XX, 2014. There is no evidence of a
New Jersey domestic partnership or civil union.
In support of her claim that they had a domestic partnership, the Claimant provided
a letter from the Arizona State Retirement System (ASRS) dated December XX, 2011,
showing that ASRS health insurance approved the Claimant’s request to enroll as the
NH’s domestic partner. A letter from ASRS advised that effective January XX, 2009,
ASRS health insurance coverage was extended to eligible member’s same-sex and opposite-sex
domestic partners. Further, the letter stated that “[a] domestic partnership is a
legal and personal relationship between two individuals who live together and share
a common domestic life but are neither joined by a traditional marriage nor a civil
union that is recognized by the State of Arizona.” The Claimant completed an ASRS
Qualified Domestic Partner Declaration of Tax Status form on November XX, 2008 and
again on November XX, 2011, stating that the NH was her qualified domestic partner.
On November XX, 2011, she also completed an ASRS Qualified Domestic Partner Affidavit
certifying that she and the NH were partners and had been domestic partners since
July XX, 1976.
ANALYSIS
A. Federal Law: Entitlement to Widow(er)’s Insurance Benefits as a
Widow(er)
Under Title II of the Act, a claimant may be entitled to widow(er)’s insurance benefits
on a deceased insured individual’s record if, among other requirements, the claimant
is the widow(er) of the insured individual and their marriage relationship lasted
at least nine months before the insured individual died. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 402(e), (f), 416(a)(2), (c), (g); 20 C.F.R. § 404.335. The agency will
find a claimant to be an insured individual’s widow(er) if the courts of the State
in which the insured individual was domiciled at the time of death would find that
the claimant and the insured individual were validly married at the time the insured
individual died, or if, under application of that State’s intestate succession laws,
the claimant would be able to inherit a spouse’s share of the insured individual’s
personal property. See 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(1)(A); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.344, 404.345.
It is our understanding that the NH was domiciled in Arizona when he died in 2014.
Therefore, we look to Arizona law to determine if the Claimant is the NH’s widow.
B. State Law: No Evidence of a Valid Marriage under Arizona
Law
We first consider whether the NH and the Claimant were validly married at the time
the NH died in Arizona in 2014. See 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(1)(A)(i). The Claimant has not presented evidence or alleged that
she and the NH obtained a marriage license and participated in a solemnized marriage
ceremony before an authorized person in accordance with either Arizona or New Jersey
marriage laws. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 25-111 - 25-125; N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 37:1-2 – 37:1-19. Further,
we note that Arizona does not recognize common-law marriage contracted within its
borders. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 25-111; Barnett v. Jedynak, 200 P.3d 1047, 1050 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009); Grant v. Smith, 555 P.2d 895, 897 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976); POMS GN 00305.075B. Similarly, New Jersey has not recognized common-law marriage contracted within New
Jersey since 1939. See N.J. Stat. Ann. § 37:1-10; Yaghoubinejad v. Haghighi, 894 A.2d 1173, 1174-1175 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2006);POMS GN 00305.075B. Thus, assuming that the couple has always lived in New Jersey and Arizona, there
can be no claim of a common-law marriage.
Accordingly, there is no evidence of a valid marriage under Arizona or New Jersey
law. As such, we believe Arizona courts would find that the NH and the Claimant were
not validly married at the time of the NH’s death in 2014.
C. State Law: No Right to Inherit a Surviving Spouse’s Share under
Arizona Intestate Succession Law Based on an Alleged Domestic
Partnership
Following section 216(h)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, the agency will treat a couple’s non-marital
legal relationship (such as a civil union, domestic partnership, or reciprocal beneficiary
relationship) as a marital relationship and consider a claimant to be the insured
individual’s widow(er) for Title II benefit purposes if the State of the insured individual’s
domicile would allow the claimant to inherit a spouse’s share of the insured individual’s
personal property if the individual died without leaving a will. See
42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(1)(A)(ii); 20 C.F.R. § 404.345; see also POMS GN 00305.005A (non-marital legal relationships can be treated as marital relationships for Title
II benefit purposes). Applying this standard, we consider whether the Claimant could
inherit a spouse’s share under Arizona intestate succession law at the time of the
NH’s death in Arizona in 2014 based on an alleged domestic partnership in New Jersey
or Arizona. See 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(1)(A)(ii).
1. No Evidence of a Valid Domestic Partnership under Arizona Law or
New Jersey Law
First, the Claimant has not provided evidence of an Arizona or New Jersey domestic
partnership valid under State law. She claimed that they entered into a domestic partnership
in New Jersey in 1976. Although current New Jersey statutory law authorizes both domestic
partnerships and civil unions, the Claimant has not presented evidence of a valid
New Jersey domestic partnership or civil union in accordance with New Jersey law.[1] Instead, the Claimant seems to rely upon her claim that they were living as domestic
partners and receipt of insurance coverage under the Arizona State Retirement System
(ASRS) as the NH’s domestic partner. While the Claimant may have been able to obtain
health insurance coverage through ASRS as the NH’s domestic partner by completing
an affidavit and application, Arizona statutes do not provide for or authorize the
establishment of state-wide non-marital legal relationships, including domestic partnerships.[2] Thus, the Claimant has not provided evidence of an Arizona or New Jersey domestic
partnership valid under any State law.
2. No Right to Inherit as a “Surviving Spouse” under Arizona
Intestate Succession Law based on an alleged Domestic Partnership
Second, even if there had been evidence of a domestic partnership, Arizona intestacy
law provides that a decedent’s “surviving spouse” may inherit a share of the decedent’s
personal property not otherwise disposed of by will. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14-2102 (intestate share of surviving spouse). Arizona’s intestacy
laws do not define the term “surviving spouse.” See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14-1201 (defining terms). Neither Arizona statutes nor case
law expressly provide that domestic partners or members of a civil union may inherit
in the same manner as a married couple under Arizona intestate succession law. Case
law indicates that Arizona courts would apply the plain meaning of the term “surviving
spouse” as a person who was married to the deceased at the time of his or her death.
See Parada v. Parada, 999 P.2d 184, 187-188 (Ariz. 2000) (applying the plain meaning of the statute concerning
death benefits to interpret “surviving spouse” in a defined benefit plan statute to
mean “married person” at the time of death, not the decedent’s divorced spouse). Thus,
the plain language of the intestate succession statute indicates that only a party
to a valid marriage can inherit as a “surviving spouse.” Consequently, in the absence
of a valid marriage, we believe Arizona courts would find that the Claimant could
not inherit from the NH as a surviving spouse under Arizona intestate succession law.
CONCLUSION
We believe Arizona courts would find that the Claimant and the NH were not validly
married under Arizona law at the time of the NH’s death on July XX, 2014, and that
the Claimant could not inherit a spouse’s share under Arizona intestate succession
law based on any alleged domestic partnership. Therefore, we believe there is legal
support for the agency to find that the Claimant is not the NH’s widow for purposes
of her claim for Title II widow’s insurance benefits on the NH’s record.