QUESTION PRESENTED
For purposes of R~’s (Claimant’s) application for spouse’s insurance benefits[1] under Title II of the Social Security Act (Act) on the record of the number holder
R~ (NH), you asked whether the Claimant is the NH’s spouse based on the same-sex marriage
they entered into on September XX, 2019, in Valletta, Malta. It is our understanding
that the NH and the Claimant are domiciled in Israel.
OPINION
Because the NH was domiciled in Israel and outside of the United States at the time
the Claimant’s application for benefits was filed, per section 216(h)(1)(A), the agency
applies the law of the District of Columbia to determine the marital status between
the Claimant and the NH. Under general conflict of law rules and the doctrine of comity,
District of Columbia courts would generally look to Malta’s laws to determine the
validity of a marriage entered into in Malta.[2] We believe District of Columbia courts would find that the Claimant and the NH entered
into a valid same-sex marriage under Malta’s laws on September XX, 2019, as evidenced
by a copy of an Act of Marriage registered in the Public Registry Office of Valletta,
Malta.[3] Thus, we believe there is legal support for the agency to find that the Claimant
is the NH’s spouse for purposes of determining the Claimant’s entitlement to Title
II benefits on the NH’s record.
BACKGROUND
On October XX, 2021, the Claimant filed an application for spouse’s insurance benefits
on the NH’s record alleging that she and the NH were married on September XX, 2019,
in Valletta, Malta. In support of the marriage in Malta, the Claimant provided a copy
of what appears to be a signed and completed Series C, Public Registry, “Act of Marriage”
registered in the Public Registry Office of Valletta, Malta showing the Claimant and
the NH as spouses.[4]
ANALYSIS
Federal Law: Entitlement to Spouse’s Insurance Benefits as a
Spouse[5]
Under Title II of the Act, a claimant may be entitled to spouse’s insurance benefits
on an insured individual’s record if, among other things, the claimant is the spouse
of the insured individual entitled to old-age or disabled insurance benefits and their
marital relationship has lasted at least one year before the date the claimant filed
the application for benefits. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 402(b), (c), 416(a)(1), (b), (f); 20 C.F.R. § 404.330(a); see also Program Operations Manual System (POMS) RS 00202.001B (the claimant meets the one year marriage duration requirement if he or she has been
married to the insured individual for at least one continuous year immediately before
the day the claimant files the application; this duration requirement “may be met
on the basis of an application actually filed before the first anniversary of the
marriage as long as the one-year anniversary occurs prior to adjudication” of the
claim).
As pertinent here, the Act provides two methods for a claimant to show that he or
she is the spouse of an insured individual who is domiciled outside of the United
States at the time an application is filed.[6] First, the agency will find a claimant to be an insured individual’s spouse if the
courts of the District of Columbia would find that the claimant and the individual
were validly married at the time the claimant filed the application. See 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(1)(A)(i); 20 C.F.R. § 404.345. Second, if the claimant was not
validly married to the individual, the claimant will be deemed to be the insured individual’s
spouse if under the law applied by the courts of the District of Columbia in determining
the devolution of intestate personal property, the claimant would have the “same status”
as a spouse of the insured with respect to the taking of such property. See 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(1)(A)(ii); 20 C.F.R. § 404.345.
It is our understanding that the NH was domiciled in Israel and outside of the United
States when the Claimant filed the application for spouse’s benefits. Therefore, we
consider whether District of Columbia courts would find the couple to be validly married.
District of Columbia Law: Valid Foreign Marriage
The District of Columbia follows the general rule that the validity of the marriage
is determined by the law of the jurisdiction where the marriage occurred.[7] See Gill v. Nostrand, 206 A.3d 869, 875 n. 4 (D.C. 2019) (recognizing a “ceremonial marriage in Brazil
as a matter of comity”); Cerovic v.
Stojkov, 134 A.3d 766, 778 (D.C. 2016) (in a divorce action, applying Serbian law to determine
marital status for purposes of equitable distribution of marital property under D.C.
law); Bansda v. Wheeler,995 A.2d 189, 198 (D.C. 2010) (in a divorce action, applying Dutch law to determine
marital status for purposes of equitable distribution of marital property under D.C.
law); see also
McConnell v. McConnell, 99 F. Supp. 493, 494 (D.D.C. 1951) (in an annulment action for a marriage contracted
in Virginia, applying Virginia law); Hitchens v. Hitchens, 47 F. Supp. 73 (D.D.C.
1942) (in an annulment action for a marriage contracted in Maryland, applying Maryland
law); Rosenbaum v. Rosenbaum, 210 A.2d 5, 7 (D.C. 1965) (“[m]arriages not polygamous or incestuous, or otherwise
declared void by statute, will, if valid by the law of the state where entered into,
be recognized as valid in every other jurisdiction”) (quoting Loughran v. Loughran, 292 U.S. 216, 223 (1934)).
Here, the Claimant alleges that she and the NH married in Valletta, Malta on September
XX, 2019, and presented a marriage certificate.[8] Thus, District of Columbia courts would determine their marital status based on the
marriage laws of Malta. We turn next to Malta’s laws on same-sex marriage.
Malta Law: Valid Same-Sex Marriage
The Claimant alleges that she and the NH were married on September XX, 2019, in Valletta,
Malta. In support of the marriage, the Claimant provided a copy of a Series C, Public
Registry, “Act of Marriage” registered in the Public Registry Office of Valletta,
Malta showing the Claimant and the NH as spouses. The Act of Marriage appears to be
fully completed and signed.
The law governing same-sex marriage in Malta is contained in the Marriage Act.[9] Malta’s Marriage Act was amended in 2017 to permit same-sex marriage.[10]
The procedure for registering acts of marriage is contained in Malta’s Civil Code.[11] Malta law provides for certain formalities to establish a valid marriage, including
requesting banns of matrimony and publicly displaying (publishing) the banns of matrimony,
showing the registrar their birth certificates, signing a declaration under oath that
there is no legal impediment to their marriage or any other lawful reason it should
not occur, and obtaining a certificate from the registrar that the banns have been
published and completed.[12]
Malta law requires that the marriage be contracted in front of at least two witnesses
and the person officiating the ceremony and civil marriages must occur in the presence
of the registrar or an authorized officer of the Marriage Registry.[13] The act of marriage is completed and delivered to be registered immediately after
the marriage is completed.[14] Religious marriages are also recognized under the Marriage Act provided they follow
certain rules.[15] There are restrictions on marriage in Malta that would result in the marriage being
void, including an underage marriage, an incapacity to enter into a contract, marriage
between certain relatives, and a prior undissolved marriage or cohabitation.[16]
The Malta Civil Code requires the Public Registry Office to hold five register books,
including one for the registration of acts of marriage.[17] All marriages that occur in the island of Malta must be registered in the Public
Registry Office in Malta.[18] A copy of an act of marriage that is registered according to the Civil Code is “deemed
a true and authentic copy for all purposes of law provided this copy is signed by
the Director of the Public Registry who receives it,” which includes an electronic
signature.[19]
In summary, per Malta’s laws, provided the formalities of a marriage are observed
and the parties have no restrictions regarding their capacity to marry, a marriage
will be valid, including a same-sex marriage.[20] Further a copy of an act of marriage with a valid signature from the Director of
Public Registry is deemed to be a true and authentic copy for all purposes of law.
Here, the Claimant has provided what appears to be a copy of a signed and completed
Act of Marriage registered in the Public Registry Office in Valletta, Malta to support
her marriage to the NH on September XX, 2019. As it appears that the Claimant and
the NH entered into a valid marriage under Malta’s laws on September XX, 2019, we
believe District of Columbia courts would recognize their same-sex marriage.
CONCLUSION
Because the NH was domiciled in Israel and outside of the United States at the time
the application for benefits was filed, per section 216(h)(1)(A), the agency applies
the law of the District of Columbia to determine the marital status between the Claimant
and the NH. Under general conflict of law rules and the doctrine of comity, District
of Columbia courts would generally look to Malta’s laws to determine the validity
of a marriage in Malta. We believe District of Columbia courts would find that the
Claimant and the NH entered into a valid same-sex marriage under Malta’s laws on September
XX, 2019, as evidenced by a copy of an Act of Marriage registered in the Public Registry
Office of Valletta, Malta. Thus, we believe there is legal support for the agency
to find that the Claimant is the NH’s spouse for purposes of determining her entitlement
to Title II benefits on the NH’s record.