The number holder (NH) was domiciled in Idaho at the time of his death; therefore, we look to Idaho law to determine if the Claimant is the NH’s widow. The Claimant does not allege or offer evidence to support a valid marriage with the NH; rather, she alleges that they entered into a domestic partnership with the NH in Idaho that began in 1991 and continued until the NH’s death. Idaho law does not expressly authorize or recognize non-marital legal relationships, such as domestic partnerships or civil unions. We believe Idaho courts would find that as of the NH’s death, the Claimant was not validly married to the NH and could not inherit a spouse’s share under Idaho intestate succession law. Thus, there is legal support for the agency to find that the Claimant is not the NH’s widow(er) under the Act for Title II benefit purposes.

QUESTION PRESENTED

B~^[1] (Claimant) filed an application for widow(er)’s insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act (Act) on the record of the deceased number holder (NH) C~, who died on August XX, 2023domiciled in Idaho. You advised that the Claimant does not allege that she and the NH were married; rather, she alleges that they entered into a domestic partnership in Idaho on October XX, 1991. You asked whether the Claimant and the NH had a valid opposite-sex domestic partnership under Idaho law to determine the Claimant’s marital status for Title II benefits on the NH’s record.

ANSWER

Based only on an alleged domestic partnership, we believe Idaho courts would find that as of the NH’s death on August XX, 2023the Claimant was not validly married to the NH and could not inherit a spouse’s share under Idaho intestate succession law. Thus, there is legal support for the agency to find that the Claimant is not the NH’s widow(er) under the Act for Title II benefit purposes. See 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(1)(A); 20 C.F.R. § 404.345.4

BACKGROUND

It is our understanding that the NH died on August XX, 2023, domiciled in Idaho. You advised that the Claimant filed an application for widow(er)’s insurance benefits on the NH’s record alleging that she entered into a domestic partnership with the NH on October XX, 1991 , in Blackfoot, Idaho. You further advised that she indicates that no ceremonial or common-law marriage took place. Further, there is no certificate or registration evidencing the domestic partnership.

The Claimant provided documents showing that the NH and the Claimant purchased a home together in 2006, were living together in 2023, and shared expenses. Specifically, she provided the following:

• •

  A Warranty Deed reflects that in 2006 the NH and the Claimant purchased a home in Idaho together as “joint tenants with right of survivorship.”

• •

  A city of Blackfoot, Idaho utilities bill dated September XX, 2023, is addressed to both the NH and the Claimant at the same home in Blackfoot, Idaho.

• •

  A gas bill dated September XX, 2023, is addressed to both the NH and the Claimant at the same home in Blackfoot, Idaho.

• •

  An electricity bill dated August XX, 2023, reflects the names of the NH and the Claimant as account holders and is addressed to both at the same home in Blackfoot, Idaho.

• •

  A 2022 property tax statement from Bingham County addressed to the NH and the Claimant for their home in Blackfoot, Idaho shows that their balance was paid in full as of September XX, 2023.

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.^[2] 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. 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; POMS GN 00305.005A.

It is our understanding that the NH was domiciled in Idaho at the time of death on August XX, 2023 Therefore, we look to Idaho law to determine if the Claimant is the NH’s widow(er).

B. Idaho State Law: No Evidence of a Legally Recognized Domestic Partnership Equivalent to a Marriage

It is our understanding that the Claimant does not allege or offer evidence to support a valid marriage with the NH; rather, she alleges that they entered into a domestic partnership that began on October XX, 1991 in Idaho and continued until the NH’s death on August XX, 2023in Idaho.^[3] Idaho law does not expressly authorize or recognize non-marital legal relationships, such as domestic partnerships or civil unions. See Idaho Code, Title 32 Domestic Relations. As an Idaho court of appeals recently noted in considering the status of an unmarried opposite-sex couple that cohabitated for 25 years, the Idaho Legislature abolished common-law marriage effective January 1, 1996 to promote the public policy of stability and best interests of marriage and the family, and “[t]he elimination of common-law marriage, supported by an explicit public policy justification, commands our courts to refrain from enforcing contracts in contravention of clearly declared public policy and from legally recognizing co-habitational relationships in general.” Gunderson v. Golden, 360 P.3d 353, 355 (Idaho Ct. App. 2015) (affirming the trial court’s dismissal of a petition seeking to apply Idaho divorce law to divide and distribute property acquired by an unmarried opposite-sex couple during their non-marital relationship that spanned the years from 1987 to 2012 where the couple did not provide sufficient evidence of a common-law marriage prior to 1996). Thus, Idaho law does not authorize domestic partnerships or provide that such relationships are equivalent to marriage. Accordingly, we believe Idaho courts would find that the Claimant was not validly married to the NH at the time of his death based on an alleged Idaho domestic partnership. See 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(1)(A)(i).

C. Idaho State Law: No Right to Inherit as a “Surviving Spouse” under Idaho Intestate Succession Law based on an Alleged Domestic Partnership

Further, we believe Idaho courts would find the Claimant could not inherit a spouse’s share from the NH under Idaho intestate succession law based on an alleged domestic partnership. Idaho’s statutes regarding intestate succession are found at Idaho Code Ann. §§ 15-2-101 – 15-2-114. Idaho intestate succession law provides that a decedent’s “surviving spouse” may inherit a share of the decedent’s estate not effectively disposed of by a will. See Idaho Code Ann. §§ 15-2-101, 15-2-102. There is no definition of “surviving spouse” in the Idaho intestate succession statutes or Idaho Uniform Probate Code’s general definitions. See Idaho Code Ann. § 15-1-201. However, the statutes do expressly state that an individual who is divorced from the decedent or whose marriage to the decedent has been annulled is not a surviving spouse, which indicates that a valid existing marriage is required to be a surviving spouse. See Idaho Code Ann. § 15-2-802(a).

Additionally, case law indicates that Idaho courts would apply the plain meaning of the term “surviving spouse” as someone who was validly married to the deceased at the time of death. See State v. Bodenbach, 448 P.3d 1005, 1014 (Idaho 2019) (noting that the court often considers dictionary definitions to ascertain the ordinary meaning of an undefined term in a statute and that the statute does not need to be ambiguous to resort to dictionaries to determine the ordinary meaning of a term); State v. Thiel, 343 P.3d 1110, 1113 (Idaho 2015) (in statutory interpretation of an unambiguous statute, words should be given their plain, usual, and ordinary meanings); Black’s Law Dictionary, spouse (11th ed. 2019) (defining “spouse” as “one’s husband or wife by lawful marriage; a married person”). Thus, the plain language of the Idaho intestate succession statute indicates that only a party to a valid marriage can inherit as a “surviving spouse.” See Idaho Code Ann. § 15-2-102.

Consequently, in the absence of a valid marriage and based only on an alleged domestic partnership, we believe Idaho courts would find that the Claimant could not inherit from the NH as a “surviving spouse” under Idaho intestate succession law. See 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(1)(A)(ii).

CONCLUSION Based only on an alleged domestic partnership, we believe Idaho courts would find that as of the NH’s death on August XX, 2023, the Claimant was not validly married to the NH and could not inherit a spouse’s share under Idaho intestate succession law. Thus, there is legal support for the agency to find that the Claimant is not the NH’s widow(er) under the Act for Title II benefit purposes. See 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(1)(A); 20 C.F.R. § 404.345.

The number holder (NH) and the Claimant were in a common-law marriage in Idaho which later converted to a formal marriage, but the couple divorced in March of 1999. The NH passed away while residing in Georgia; therefore, we apply the Georgia law. The testimonial and circumstantial evidence shows the existence of a common-law marriage between the NH and the claimant which later converted to a formal marriage and lasted from at least 1986 through 1999. Accordingly, under Idaho law, and by extension Georgia law, the NH and the claimant were validly married for over ten consecutive years immediately preceding the divorce. It is in our opinion that the claimant has satisfied the marriage duration requirement relating to her application for divorced widow’s benefits.

QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether F~, the deceased number holder (NH), and M~, the applicant divorced widow (the claimant), were validly married for at least ten years immediately preceding the date of dissolution under Idaho law.

BRIEF ANSWER

Yes. The NH and the claimant were in a common-law marriage that later converted to a formal marriage, with a total duration of over ten years. Thus, the claimant has established the marriage duration requirement for entitlement to divorced widow’s benefits.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

According to the claimant, she and the NH began living together in a husband and wife relationship in Idaho in July 1983. On August XX, 1983, the NH and the claimant jointly purchased residential property. They filed joint state and Federal tax returns in tax year 1984.

In addition, the parties’ siblings submitted “Statement[s] Regarding Marriage.” The claimant’s sister stated the couple had maintained a home and lived together as husband and wife since 1982. The NH’s sister indicated the couple had been together since 1986.

On November XX, 1989, the NH and the claimant participated in a ceremonial marriage in Idaho. On March XX, 1999, however, the couple got divorced.

On January XX, 2010, the NH passed away while residing in Georgia. On May XX, 2016, the claimant applied for widow’s benefits on the NH’s record.

ANALYSIS

Relevant Federal Law

An applicant may be entitled to widow’s benefits as the surviving divorced wife of a person who died fully insured if the applicant had a valid marriage with the fully insured individual that lasted at least ten years immediately before the divorce became final. 42 U.S.C. § 402(e); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.331, 404.336. In order to determine whether the applicant and insured individual were validly married, the Agency looks to the State law where the NH was domiciled at the time of his death. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.344, 404.345.

Here, the NH resided in Georgia when he died. Absent evidence to the contrary, we take this as his permanent home and apply Georgia law. District of Columbia v. Murphy, 314 U.S. 441, 455 (1941).

Relevant State Law

When determining the validity of out-of-state marriages, Georgia views the marriage as a civil contract and applies the law of the forum in which it was made. Norman v. Ault, 695 S.E.2d 633, 636 (Ga. 2010). Since both the ceremonial marriage and the purported common-law marriage at issue here occurred in Idaho, Georgia law directs us to Idaho law.

Idaho recognizes two forms of marriage: one is a marriage that is solemnized by a person authorized to do so, with issuance of a license, as provided by statute; the other is a common-law marriage. Idaho Code §§ 32-201, 32-301 (2016); Freiburghaus v. Freiburghaus, 651 P.2d 944, 946 (Idaho 1982). While common-law marriage is no longer legal in the state, this does not apply to any marriages in effect prior to January 1, 1996, which is the period at issue here. Idaho Code § 32-301(2). In contrast with other jurisdictions, Idaho has never viewed common law marriage with disfavor. Freiburghaus, 651 P.2d at 946

To establish a common-law marriage in Idaho, the evidence must show the parties consented, as well as assumed the rights, duties, and obligations of marriage. Wilkins v. Wilkins, 48 P.3d 644, 649 (Idaho 2002). Consent may be either express or implied by conduct. Id. If consent is implied, the best and most common, although not exclusive, method of proof is to show cohabitation, general reputation in the community as husband and wife, and holding oneself out as married; from such evidence, a court may infer that, at the outset, mutual consent was present. Id. Testimony from one surviving party is sufficient to prove a common-law marriage. Id.

Application of Idaho Law to Current Case

The NH and the claimant were formally married from November 1989 to March 1999, a period lasting nine years and five months. Thus, the relevant question is whether a common-law marriage existed for at least seven months immediately preceding the date of formal marriage.

There is no evidence of express consent to a common-law marriage between the NH and the claimant. Nevertheless, under Idaho law, the claimant’s testimony, as well as other circumstantial evidence, sufficiently establishes implied consent.

The claimant stated she and the NH began cohabitating in a “husband and wife relationship” in July 1983 and continued to do so until March 1999, the date of divorce. In addition, the couple jointly purchased real estate in August 1983 and jointly filed taxes the following year, indicating a general reputation in the community as husband and wife. Moreover, both the claimant’s sister and the NH’s sister agreed the parties presented as a couple since at least 1986, well before the relevant date of March 1989.

Thus, the testimonial and circumstantial evidence shows the existence of a common-law marriage between the NH and the claimant, which later converted to a formal marriage and lasted from at least 1986 through 1999. Accordingly, under Idaho law, and by extension Georgia law, the NH and the claimant were validly married for over ten consecutive years immediately preceding the divorce.

CONCLUSION

It is our opinion that the NH and the claimant were validly married under Idaho law, and therefore under Georgia law, for at least ten consecutive years immediately preceding their divorce. Thus, the claimant has satisfied the marriage duration requirement relating to her application for divorced widow’s benefits.