TN 19 (02-20)

PR 05845.024 Massachusetts

A. PR 18-088 Widow's Benefits and Same-Sex Domestic Partnership-Provincetown, Massachusetts

Date: 9/21/18

1. SYLLABUS:

The number holder (NH) died while domiciled in Massachusetts; therefore, we look to the Massachusetts law to determine if the NH and Claimant's has a valid same-sex domestic partnership. While it may be the case that the same-sex domestic partnership entered into by the claimant and the NH in Massachusetts is valid under Massachusetts law, the Massachusetts courts would not recognize it as a non marital legal relationship that would permit the claimant to inherit from the NH under the State’s intestacy statutes. Therefore, we do not believe that a Massachusetts court would find that the non-marital legal relationship would entitle a domestic partner to inherit as a “spouse” under Massachusetts intestacy statutes. The claimant is not considered the NH's surviving spouse for purposes of benefits under the Title II of the Social Security Act and is not entitled to survivor's benefits under the NH's record.

2. Opinion

QUESTION

You asked whether the claimant, P~ (Claimant), the surviving domestic partner of the number holder, J~ (NH), is entitled to survivors’ benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act (the Act).

SHORT ANSWER

No. Even assuming that the same-sex domestic partnership entered into by the claimant and the NH in Massachusetts is valid under Massachusetts law, we believe that Massachusetts would not recognize the domestic partnership as a non-marital legal relationship entitling the claimant to inherit a spouse’s share of the NH’s personal property should the NH have died without leaving a will. For that reason, the agency should not consider the claimant to be the NH’s surviving spouse.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

In February 2017, the claimant applied for survivors’ benefits on the earnings record of the deceased NH. The claimant provided documentation that she and the NH entered in to a “domestic partnership” in Massachusetts on October XX, 1993. The claimant alleged that the couple began living together in a “marital” relationship in 1988 and maintained that relationship through the NH’s death in January 2017. The couple lived in Massachusetts for the duration of their relationship, and the NH died in Massachusetts. There is no evidence that the couple obtained a marriage license or entered in to a “marriage” under Massachusetts law. In support of her application, the claimant provided the following evidence:

  • The Town’s Copy of Record of the Domestic Partnership, entered into by the claimant and NH on October XX, 1993 and signed by the Town Clerk;

  • The claimant’s Statement of Marital Relationship (SSA-754), in which she stated that she and the NH had been living together as spouses since 1988 and that she and the NH planned to legally marry in their thirtieth year together, which would have been in 2018; and

  • Statements Regarding Marriage (SSA-753) provided by the claimant’s daughter, C~; the NH’s brother, B~; and the NH’s sister, L~.

APPLICABLE LAW

Federal Law and Agency Guidance

A “non-marital legal relationship (such as a civil union, domestic partnership, or reciprocal beneficiary relationship) can be treated as a marital relationship for purposes of determining entitlement to benefits” if two requirements are met:

(1) the non-marital legal relationship “was valid in the place it was established”; and

(2) it “qualifies as a marital relationship using the laws of the state of the NH’s domicile or would allow the claimant to inherit a spouse’s share of the NH’s personal property should the NH have died without leaving a will.”

POMS GN 00210.004.A, C; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.345 (agency must look to the laws of the insured’s domicile at the time she died). To be entitled to survivors’ benefits under Title II of the Act, a claimant must show that, among other things, she is the widow of the insured. See Act § 202(f)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 402(e)(1). As pertinent here, the Act defines “widow” as “the surviving wife of an individual . . . .” [1] 42 U.S.C. § 416(c)(1). The relationship requirement can also be met if, under State law, the claimant would be able to inherit a spouse’s share of the insured’s personal property if she were to die without leaving a will. 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(1)(A)(ii); 20 C.F.R. § 404.345.

Thus, even though they were never married, the claimant will be considered the NH’s spouse, and entitled to surviving spouse’s benefits under Title II of the Act, if

(1) their same-sex domestic partnership was valid in Massachusetts and

(2) Massachusetts law considers the domestic partnership to be a marital relationship or would allow the claimant to inherit the same share as a spouse under its intestacy laws at the time of the NH’s death.

ANALYSIS

A. It Appears That the Domestic Partnership Between the Claimant and the NH Was Valid in Massachusetts When It Was Entered Into in 1993.

Initially, we conclude that, at the time it was entered into, the domestic partnership between the claimant and the NH may have been valid under Massachusetts law. Chapter 7 of the Provincetown General Bylaws was the local ordinance that governed same-sex domestic partnerships in Provincetown, Massachusetts. See Provincetown, Mass., Gen. Bylaws ch. 7-1 (2010)[2] .

Although the ordinance was repealed on November 8, 2010, any rights and benefits that were in effect prior to that date continue. Provincetown, Mass., Gen. Bylaws ch. 7-1 (2017).[3]

Those rights, which were first granted in 1993, include only:

(1) health care visitation;

(2) correctional facility visitation; and

(3) access to children and children’s school records. See Provincetown, Mass., Gen. Bylaws ch. 2-4-6 (1993).

In addition, the ordinance specified that the term “spouse”—when used elsewhere in the town bylaws—would include domestic partners. See Provincetown, Mass., Gen. Bylaws ch. 7-11 (2010).

We have no reason to doubt the validity of the domestic partnership between the claimant and the NH.[4] Based on the information provided, the couple entered into a domestic partnership on October XX, 1993, during the period when domestic partnerships were available in Provincetown and prior to the repeal of the ordinance on November 8, 2010. Any rights and benefits that were in effect prior to the repeal continued. The claimant provided a copy of the certified record of the domestic partnership dated October XX, 1993. Therefore, based on the evidence provided, the domestic partnership between the claimant and the NH appears to have been valid under Massachusetts law at the time it was entered into in 1993.[5] For the reasons set forth below, we have not determined the extent to which the Provincetown ordinance had any legal effect outside of Provincetown.

B. Massachusetts Would Not Recognize the Couple’s Massachusetts Domestic Partnership as a Non-Marital Legal Relationship That Confers Inheritance Rights.

Assuming the validity of the domestic partnership between the NH and the claimant, we consider next whether the domestic partnership qualifies as a marital relationship under Massachusetts law or would allow the claimant to inherit as a “spouse” under Massachusetts intestacy law. POMS GN 00210.004.C.

As to the first consideration, there is no Massachusetts law stating that domestic partnerships established by municipalities in Massachusetts are the equivalent of marital relationships.

As to the second consideration, the agency will consider “the claimant to be the number holder (NH)’s spouse for benefit purposes if the state of the NH’s domicile would allow the claimant to inherit a spouse’s share of the NH’s personal property if the NH died without leaving a will.” POMS GN 00210.004.A; see also 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(1)(A)(ii); 20 C.F.R. § 404.345. In those circumstances, the agency “will treat the couple’s relationship as a marital relationship.” POMS GN 00210.004.A.

Massachusetts sets forth the law of intestacy in the Massachusetts Uniform Probate Code (UPC). Such law provides that when an individual dies in Massachusetts without making a will, the decedent’s “spouse” inherits a predetermined share of the estate. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 190B, Art. II, § 2-102 (West 2016). The Massachusetts UPC, however, does not define the term “spouse,” nor does the case law define such a term, with respect to this portion of the statute. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “spouse” as “one’s husband or wife by lawful marriage; a married person.” See Black’s Law Dictionary at 1410 (7th ed.).

A review of the Massachusetts marriage laws reveals no indication that a “domestic partner” would be considered a “spouse.” See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 207, § 1 et seq. (West 2016). Furthermore, the Provincetown ordinance did not state that inheritance rights were granted with domestic partnership. In fact, if the municipality had attempted to enact such an ordinance, it would have been preempted by state law that governs that area exclusively. See, e.g., School Committee of Boston v. City of Boston, 421 N.E.2d 1187, (Mass. 1981) (Legislative intent to supersede local regulations may not be expressly stated where state law deals with subject comprehensively and may reasonably be inferred as intended to preclude exercise of any local power or function on same subject because otherwise legislative purpose of statute would be frustrated.). We were unable to locate any case where a domestic partner sought to collect benefits from his or her deceased partner under Massachusetts intestacy law or where a domestic partner tried to collect a spousal share of the deceased partner’s estate. Further, the intestacy law makes no mention of domestic partnerships between same-sex couples. See Woodward v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 760 N.E.2d 257, 262 (Mass. 2002) (citing Merchants Nat’l Bank v. Merchants Nat’l Bank, 62 N.E.2d 831 (Mass. 1945)) (“In our Commonwealth, the devolution of real and personal property in intestacy is neither a natural nor a constitutional right. It is a privilege conferred by statute.”).

Here, even assuming that the domestic partnership between the NH and the claimant was valid under Massachusetts law, a review of the Massachusetts marriage laws reveals no indication that a “domestic partner” would be considered a “spouse” such that the intestacy laws would confer inheritance rights to the surviving partner in a domestic partnership. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 207, § 1 et seq. (West 2016). Thus, under Massachusetts law, the parties’ domestic partnership did not confer inheritance rights to the surviving spouse and we have found no case law interpreting the statute to the contrary. Massachusetts domestic partnerships are not the equivalent of same-sex marriages and do not provide all rights, benefits, burdens, and responsibilities of a marriage. Therefore, we do not believe that a Massachusetts court would find that the non-marital legal relationship would entitle a domestic partner to inherit as a “spouse” under Massachusetts intestacy statutes.

CONCLUSION

While it may be the case that the same-sex domestic partnership entered into by the claimant and the NH in Massachusetts is valid under Massachusetts law, Massachusetts courts would not recognize it as a non marital legal relationship that would permit the claimant to inherit from the NH under the State’s intestacy statutes.

 


Footnotes:

[1]

There is no question that the nine-month durational requirement of the statute has been established. 42 U.S.C. § 416(c)(1)(E).

[2]

See https://www.provincetown-ma.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/759 (last viewed on May 15, 2018).

[3]

See http://www.provincetown-ma.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/2424 (last viewed on May 15, 2018).

[4]

The parties resided in another Massachusetts town when they entered into a same-sex domestic partnership in Provincetown, Massachusetts on October XX, 1993. The local ordinance that governed same sex domestic partnerships in Provincetown did not include a residency requirement.Although the ordinance referenced the Provincetown population and recognized the town’s commitment to its citizens, it did not include residency (permanent or otherwise) as a requirement for domestic partnership. In addition, the copy of the town record of the parties’ domestic partnership shows that the parties were residents of another Massachusetts town.

[5]

Some of the forms that the claimant presented, including the Statement of Marital Relationship and the Statements Regarding Marriage from the parties’ family members, contain evidence relevant to determining whether the same-sex couple had entered into a common-law marriage. The claimant has not specifically inquired whether she would be entitled to survivors’ benefits on the basis of a common-law marriage. However, in that instance, our answer would still be no. Massachusetts, the NH’s state of residency at the time of her death, does not recognize common-law marriage. Wilcox v. Trautz, 693 N.E.2d 141, 146 (Mass. 1998) (“We have never recognized common[-]law marriage in this Commonwealth, see Heistand v. Heistand, 423 N.E.2d 313, 316 (Mass. 1981), nor have we ‘permitted the incidents of the marital relationship to attach to an arrangement of cohabitation without marriage.’” (quoting Collins v. Guggenheim, 631 N.E.2d 1016, 1017 (Mass. 1994))). Thus, such a relationship, if established by the evidence presented, would not confer spousal rights under Title II of the Act.


To Link to this section - Use this URL:
http://policy.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/1505845024
PR 05845.024 - Massachusetts - 02/21/2020
Batch run: 02/21/2020
Rev:02/21/2020