I. Issue
You asked whether Maria (the claimant) qualifies as Juan (the NH)’s wife for purposes
of determining her entitlement to wife’s insurance benefits under the Social Security
Act.
II. Opinion
The claimant does not qualify as the NH’s wife for purposes of determining her entitlement
to wife’s insurance benefits. The claimant was not validly married to the NH at the
time she applied for benefits, nor does the claimant have the same status as a wife
of the NH under intestacy law.
III. Background
The claimant and the NH, both of whom reside in Argentina, allege that they entered
into a common-law marriage in September 2009. Since that time, the claimant and the
NH have lived together and have held themselves out to others as husband and wife. However,
the claimant and the NH acknowledge that their relationship has not been celebrated
with a civil marriage ceremony. They stated that they plan to have a civil marriage
ceremony in the future, but have not yet done so because they are waiting for “certificates
. . to be legalized.” In November 2010, the claimant applied for wife’s insurance
benefits on the NH’s earnings record.
IV. Discussion
Under the Social Security Act, a claimant may be entitled to wife’s insurance benefits
if she is the wife of an insured individual. See Social Security Act § 202(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 402(b)(1); 20 C.F.R. § 404.330(a). As
pertinent here, the Act provides two means by which a claimant may qualify as the
wife of an insured individual who is domiciled outside the United States. First,
a claimant is the wife of such individual if the courts of the District of Columbia
would find that she was validly married to him at the time she applied for benefits. See Social Security Act § 216(h)(1)(A)(i); 20 C.F.R. § 404.305. Second, even if the
claimant was not validly married to the insured individual at the time she applied
for benefits, she will be deemed to be his wife if, under the law applied by the courts
of the District of Columbia in determining the devolution of intestate personal property,
she would have the same status as a wife. See Social Security Act § 216(h)(1)(A)(ii); 20 C.F.R. § 404.345.
A. The Claimant Was Not Validly Married to the NH
Under District of Columbia law, the validity of a marriage is determined by the law
of the jurisdiction where the marriage was entered into. See McConnell v. McConnell, 99 F. Supp. 493, 494 (D.D.C. 1951); Carr v. Carr, 82 F. Supp. 398 (D.D.C. 1949); Gerardi v. Gerardi, 69 F. Supp. 296 (D.D.C. 1946). Here, the claimant and the NH allege that they entered
into a common-law marriage in Argentina. Accordingly, we must determine whether their
relationship constitutes a valid marriage under Argentine law.
Argentina does not recognize common-law marriage. See C~ Civil arts. 172, 186. Argentina recognizes as valid only civil marriages that are
celebrated with a civil marriage ceremony before competent authorities of the Registry
of Civil Status. Id. In this matter, the claimant and the NH acknowledge that their relationship has not
been celebrated with a civil marriage ceremony. Their relationship, therefore, does
not constitute a valid marriage under Argentine law. Accordingly, the claimant cannot
qualify as the NH’s wife on the basis that she was validly married to him at the time
she applied for benefits.
B. The Claimant Does Not Have the Same Status As a Wife Under Intestacy Law
Even if the claimant was not validly married to the NH, she will be deemed to be his
wife if, under the law applied by the courts of the District of Columbia in determining
the devolution of intestate personal property, she would have the same status as a
wife. See Social Security Act § 216(h)(1)(A)(ii); 20 C.F.R. § 404.345.
Under District of Columbia law, intestate inheritance rights are determined by the
law of the decedent’s domicile. Javier v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 407 F.3d 1244, 1247 (D.D.C. 2005) (citing In re G~’s Estate, 168 F. Supp. 124 (D.D.C. 1958)). Here, since the NH was domiciled in Argentina,
we must apply Argentine law to determine whether the claimant has the same status
as a wife for purposes of inheriting the NH’s intestate property.
Argentine law provides intestate inheritance rights for married couples only. See C~ Civil arts. 3570-76; see also Mirta, Concubinato: Cuestiones Patrimoniales, Personales y Previsionales 100 (Rosario,
Editorial FAS, 1999); III-B Maria , D~ 514, n.2 (Buenos Aires, Rubinzal-Culzoni, 2009).
Argentine law does not provide such rights for cohabiting but unmarried couples. Id.
In this matter, because the claimant’s relationship with the NH does not constitute
a valid marriage under Argentine law, the claimant does not have the same status as
a wife of the NH for purposes of intestate inheritance. Indeed, as a cohabiting but
unmarried partner of the NH, the claimant does not have any intestate inheritance
rights under Argentine law. Thus, the claimant cannot qualify as the NH’s wife on
the grounds that she has the same status as a wife of the NH under intestacy law.
V. Conclusion
The claimant does not qualify as the NH’s wife for purposes of determining her entitlement
to wife’s insurance benefits. The claimant was not validly married to the NH at the
time she applied for WIB, nor does the claimant have the same status as a wife of
the NH under intestacy law.