TN 60 (10-23)

PR 05005.004 Arizona

October 2, 2023

A. PR 23-016 Marital Status for Widow(er)’s Insurance Benefits: Arizona Law – Alleged Opposite-Sex Domestic Partnership between Deceased

1. SYLLABUS

The number holder (NH) died while domiciled in Arizona. The Claimant alleged that she and the NH entered into an opposite-sex domestic partnership in Hazelton, New Jersey in 1976. There is no evidence of a New Jersey domestic partnership or civil union. 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 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.

2. OPINION

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.


Footnotes:

[1]

New Jersey’s Domestic Partnership Act (DPA) took effect on July 10, 2004, formally recognizing domestic partnerships under New Jersey law and accorded certain rights to registered domestic partners. See N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 26:8A-1 – 26:8A-13. In December 2006, the New Jersey Legislature enacted the Civil Union Act, which took effect February 19, 2007, and established civil unions that, unlike domestic partnerships, afforded parties to the union all the same rights and benefits of marriage. See N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 37:1-28—37:1-35. With the Civil Union Act, effective February 19, 2007, the Legislature provided that no domestic partnerships would be registered under the DPA except where the two parties are each 62 years or older. See N.J. Stat. Ann. § 26:8A-4.1. The Civil Union Act did not alter the rights and responsibilities of registered domestic partnerships existing prior to February 19, 2007, except that eligible domestic partners would be given notice and opportunity to enter into a civil union, which would operate to terminate their domestic partnership. See id.

[2]

Some Arizona municipalities provide for and confer limited rights to domestic partners under local laws. See Phoenix City Code §§ 18-401, 18-405; Tucson City Code, Chapter 17, Article IX, § 17-72. Arizona law recognizes domestic partnerships, but only in specific and limited contexts. For example, a domestic partner can serve as a “surrogate decision maker” for an individual if the individual is not married, see Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-3231(A)(4), and can make an anatomical gift from a decedent if no one else assumed financial responsibility for the decedent, see Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-848(a)(5). It is our understanding per information on the ASRS website and from the ASRS documents provided by the Claimant that beginning in 2009 and until same-sex marriage was legalized in Arizona in 2014, the ASRS offered the option of domestic partner health insurance coverage. The ASRS no longer offers this option for domestic partners. SeeInformation for same-sex married members | Arizona State Retirement System (azasrs.gov) (last visited Oct. 2, 2023).


To Link to this section - Use this URL:
http://policy.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/1505005004
PR 05005.004 - Arizona - 10/31/2023
Batch run: 10/31/2023
Rev:10/31/2023