TN 39 (11-18)
A. PR
18-117 Validity of Purported Ohio Common Law Marriage for purposes of determining eligibility
for Medicare benefits – North Carolina
DATE: July 31, 2018
1. SYLLABUS
The number holder (NH) was domiciled in North Caroline at the time the Claimant filed
for benefits; therefore, we look to the North Carolina law to determine whether the
Claimant would be considered the NH’s wife for Title II and Medicare purposes. The
Claimant and NH alleged that they entered into a common-law marriage in Ohio in 1976.
Ohio has prohibited common-law marriages since October 10, 1991, but common-law marriages
occurring prior to that date and not terminated by death, divorce, dissolution, or
annulment remain valid. Based on the evidence provided, the agency could conclude
that the Ohio courts would find that the Claimant and the NH have a valid common-law
marriage that began in August 1976 in Ohio and; therefore, the agency can conclude
that North Carolina courts would recognize their marriage as valid. Thus, the agency
can determine that the Claimant is NH’s spouse for Medicare and Title II purposes.
2. OPINION
Claimant and NH are validly married under North Carolina law for determining Claimant’s
entitlement to Medicare and any social security benefits on NH’s earnings record.
BACKGROUND
According to the information provided, Claimant and NH allege that they entered into
a common-law marriage in Ohio on August XX, 1976. Claimant and NH provided a notarized
contract that they both signed on that date. The contract sets forth the legal requirements
for common-law marriage in Ohio at that time and indicates that Claimant and NH acknowledged
that their marriage, as defined by the common law of the State of Ohio, and that they
understood the contract would continue for their joint lives and could be dissolved
only by law or the death of one of the parties.
Claimant and NH also both provided Statements of Marital Relationship. Claimant and
NH stated that they began living together as husband and wife in August 1976 in Ohio
and had lived together continuously since that time in Ohio, West Virginia, and North
Carolina. Claimant and NH reported that they had an understanding of their relationship
reflected in the contract discussed above, that the understanding never changed, and
that they understood that they would live together “until death do us part.” Claimant
and NH also reported that they believed living together made them legally married,
there was no promise of a later ceremonial marriage, and that two children were born
of the relationship. Claimant and NH further reported that they filed federal and
state tax returns together from 1977 to the present showing each other as the other’s
spouse, that they held joint bank accounts from approximately 1989 to the present
showing each other as the other’s spouse, and that they introduced each other as husband
and wife. Claimant and NH identified several friends who knew of their relationship
and they identified and gave contact information for relatives who knew of their relationship.
Claimant and NH also remarked that they had wills, trusts, and powers of attorney
established since 1991.
DISCUSSION
Medicare is a federally subsidized health insurance program for individuals age sixty-five
or older and certain qualified individuals under age sixty-five. See Social Security Act (Act) § 1801-1899B. An individual is eligible for Hospital Insurance Benefits (Medicare Part A) if they
are age sixty-five or older and entitled to monthly insurance benefits under the old-age
and survivors insurance benefit program in Title II of the Act, including spouse’s
benefits. See Act § 1811; 42 C.F.R. § 406.5(a) (2018);[1] Program Operations Manual System (POMS) HI 00801.006(A)(1), (B). An individual is eligible for Supplemental Medical Insurance Benefits
(Medicare part B) if he or she is entitled to Medicare Part A, is age sixty-five or
older, and is a resident and United States citizen or lawful permanent resident who
continuously resided in the United States during the previous five years. See Act § 1836; 42 C.F.R. § 407.10(a); POMS HI 00805.005(A). Thus, if a claimant is entitled to spouse’s benefits under Title II of the Act,
the claimant may also be entitled to Medicare Parts A and B if the claimant meets
the other requirements for Medicare entitlement.
Claimant and NH allege a common-law marriage and do not contend they entered or intended
to enter into a ceremonial marriage. In relevant part, a claimant is the spouse of
an insured individual for purposes of benefits under Title II of the Act if “the courts
of the State in which such insured individual is domiciled at the time such applicant
files an application . . . would find that such applicant and such insured individual
were validly married at the time such applicant files such application . . . .” Act
§ 216(h)(1)(A)(i); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.345. Therefore, we look to North Carolina law to determine whether
Claimant would be considered NH’s wife for Title II and Medicare purposes.
The POMS states that North Carolina does not recognize common-law marriages. See POMS GN 00305.075(B); State v. Alford, 265 S.E.2d 242, 247 (N.C. 1979). Although the POMS provision does not indicate that
North Carolina will recognize common-law marriages validly entered into in other states
as some other state entries on the list do, see POMS GN 00305.075(B), North Carolina case law provides that the State will recognize such marriages.
If the relationship between two individuals suffices to constitute a valid marriage
in another state, North Carolina will recognize such a marriage. SeeGarrett v. Burris, 224 S.E.2d 414, 416 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012) (holding that North Carolina will recognize
as valid a common-law marriage if the acts alleged to have created it took place in
a state in which such a marriage is valid) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
Therefore, the determination here turns on whether Claimant and NH had established
a valid common-law marriage in Ohio.
Ohio has prohibited common-law marriages since October 10, 1991, but common-law marriages
occurring prior to that date and not terminated by death, divorce, dissolution, or
annulment remain valid. See Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3105.12(B); POMS GN 00305.075B. Common-law marriages are disfavored in Ohio and are recognized as lawful only when
they meet certain requirements. See Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3105.12(B)(3);
Nestor v. Nestor, 472 N.E.2d 1091, 1094 (Ohio 1984) (adopted as Social Security Ruling 88-14). The
elements of a common-law marriage in Ohio are: (1) an agreement to marry at the present
time; (2) cohabitation as husband and wife; and (3) the treatment and reputation as
being husband and wife in the community and circle in which the couple resides. See Nestor, 472 N.E.2d at 1094; DeCarlo v. Estate of
Maxwell, 854 N.E.2d 230, 233 n.2 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006). The essential element of a common-law
marriage claim is the agreement to marry at the present time,that is, the parties
agree to take each other as spouses at the time they purportedly entered into marriage. See Nestor, 472 N.E.2d at 1094 (“The fundamental requirement to establish the existence of a
common law marriage is a meeting of the minds between the parties who enter into a
mutual contract to presently take each other as man and wife”).
The agreement to marry at the present time may be proven either by direct evidence
of the agreement or “by way of proof of cohabitation, acts, declarations, and the
conduct of the parties and their recognized status in the community in which they
reside.” Id. Where there is direct evidence concerning the formation of the contract of marriage
at the present time, the evidence of long-time cohabitation and reputation of living
together as man and wife should be given even greater weight to further strengthen
the inference of marriage. SeeNestor, 472 N.E.2d at 1094-95. However, without the threshold element of an agreement to
marry at the present time, a common-law marriage cannot be established, regardless
of cohabitation or reputation as a couple. See id. The party alleging a common-law marriage has the burden of proving all of the elements
by clear and convincing evidence. See
Estate of Everhart v. Everhart, 14 N.E.3d 438, 446 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014) (citing Nestor, 472 N.E.2d at 1094) (other citations omitted). “Clear and convincing evidence is that degree of proof which produces in the mind
of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the allegations sought to be
established.” Id.
In this case, Claimant and NH did not submit the regulatory preferred evidence of
a common-law marriage because they did not provide a Statement Regarding Marriage
from a blood relative of each spouse. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.726(b)(1); POMS GN 00305.065(B)(1). Claimant and NH provided only their own Statements of Marital Relationship.
However, Claimant and NH did provide direct evidence concerning the formation of the
contract of marriage at the present time in the form of a notarized contract signed
by Claimant and NH. The contract states that they acknowledged a common-law marriage
as defined by Ohio law and understood it continued for their joint lives and could
only be dissolved by law or death of one of the parties. Because there is direct evidence
concerning the formation of the contract of marriage at the contemporaneous time,
evidence of long-time cohabitation and reputation of living together as spouses should
be given even greater weight to further strengthen the inference of marriage here.
SeeNestor , 472 N.E.2d at 1094-95.
Claimant and NH stated that they have lived together as husband and wife continuously
since August 1976, that they have wills, trusts, and powers of attorney together,
that they have filed federal and state tax returns together since 1977, and that they
have had joint bank accounts since 1989. Claimant and NH also stated that they have
introduced each other as husband and wife since the date they entered the common-law
marriage contract, and they provided contact information for relatives and the names
of friends who knew of their relationship. Moreover, Claimant and NH reported that
two children were born of the relationship. Based on the above evidence, we agree
that the field office could determine there is conclusive proof that Ohio would find
Claimant and NH established a valid common-law marriage in Ohio. See POMS GN 00305.065(B)(2) (noting that the agency does not require attempts to obtain the preferred evidence
if other evidence conclusively proves the establishment of a common-law marriage).
CONCLUSION
The agency could conclude that Ohio courts would find that Claimant and NH have a
valid common-law marriage that began in August 1976 in Ohio and, therefore, the agency
can conclude that North Carolina courts would recognize their marriage as valid. Thus,
the agency can determine that Claimant is NH’s spouse for Medicare and Title II purposes.