I. QUESTION PRESENTED
You asked us whether, at the time of K~s’ (the NH) death in 2007, the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts would have permitted C~ (the claimant—the NH’s same-sex civil union
partner) to inherit as a spouse if the NH had died without leaving a will (intestate).
II. SHORT ANSWER
We believe that, at the time of the NH’s death in 2007, Massachusetts would have permitted
the claimant to inherit as a spouse had the NH died intestate. As a result, the claimant
can be recognized as the NH’s surviving spouse for purposes of determining entitlement
to benefits as a surviving spouse.
III. BACKGROUND
On May XX, 2001, the claimant and the NH entered into a civil union in the State of
Vermont. The civil union ended when the NH died on April XX, 2007, in the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts. The claimant filed for surviving spouse with child-in-care benefits
on July XX, 2013, in Massachusetts.
IV. APPLICABLE LAW
A. Federal Law and Agency Guidance
In order to decide whether a claimant would be considered the widow or widower (surviving
spouse) of an insured number holder, the agency looks to the laws of the state where
the insured was domiciled at the time of death. Under the Social Security Act:
An applicant is the wife, husband, widow, or widower of a fully or currently insured
individual for purposes of this title if the courts of the State in which such insured
individual is domiciled at the time such applicant files an application, or, if such
insured individual is dead, the courts of the State in which he was domiciled at the
time of death… would find that such applicant and such insured individual were validly
married at the time such applicant files such application or, if such insured individual
is dead, at the time he died. If such courts would not find that such applicant and
such insured individual were validly married at such time, such applicant shall, nevertheless
be deemed to be the wife, husband, widow, or widower, as the case may be, of such
insured individual if such applicant would, under the laws applied by such courts
in determining the devolution of intestate personal property, have the same status
with respect to the taking of such property as a wife, husband, widow, or widower
of such insured individual.
42 U.S.C. 416(h)(1)(A). See also 20 C.F.R. § 404.345
Accordingly, a non-marital relationship (such as a civil union) can be treated as
a marital relationship for the purposes of determining entitlement to benefits if
certain conditions are satisfied. POMS GN 00210.004A. Specifically, a claimant is considered married for benefit purposes if the non-marital
legal relationship: (1) “was valid in the place it was established”; and (2) “qualifies
as a marital relationship using the laws of the state of the [number holder’s] domicile.”
POMS GN 00210.004B. This second step requires an evaluation of whether the intestacy laws of the number
holder’s domicile state would permit the claimant to inherit a spouse’s share of the
number holder’s estate if the number holder were to die without leaving a will. POMS
GN 00210.004A.
B. State Law
Vermont permitted civil unions, a type of non-marital legal relationship conveying
spousal inheritance rights, from July 1, 2000 through September 1, 2009. Vt. Stat.
Ann. tit. 15, § 1202 (2000) (portions repealed by Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 8 (2009));
see Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 1204(a) (2000). From its enactment in 2000, Section 1204(a)
of the Vermont Statutes has provided that, “[p]arties to a civil union shall have
all the same benefits, protections, and responsibilities under law, whether they derive
from statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law, or any other source
of civil law, as are granted to spouses in a civil marriage.” Id.
Same-sex marriages have been valid in Massachusetts since May 17, 2004, as a result
of the Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in Goodridge v. Dep’t of Public Health, 798 N.E. 2d 941 (Mass. 2003). The Massachusetts General Laws discuss certain requirements
for a valid marriage, but do not address whether the Commonwealth would consider a
civil union performed out of state to be a marriage under Massachusetts law. See Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 207, § 1-58.
V. ANALYSIS
A. The civil union between the claimant and the NH was valid in the State of Vermont
in May 2001.
When the claimant and the NH entered into a civil union in the State of Vermont on
May XX, 2001, such unions had been valid since 2000, and conveyed “all the same benefits,
protections, and responsibilities under law … as are granted to spouses in a civil
marriage.” Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 1202 (2000) (portions repealed by Vt. Stat. Ann.
tit. 15, § 8 (2009)); see Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 1204(a) (2000). Since the couple’s
union was valid, the next question is whether the relationship would “qualif[y] as
a marital relationship using the laws of the state of the [the NH’s] domicile.” POMS
GN 00210.004B.
B. Massachusetts likely would have permitted the claimant to inherit as the NH’s spouse
if the NH had died intestate.
We believe that Massachusetts would have permitted the claimant to inherit as the
NH’s spouse — as a result of the civil union entered into by the couple in Vermont
in 2001 — if the NH had died intestate.
As noted above, the agency must evaluate whether the laws of the NH’s state of domicile
at death would permit the claimant to inherit a spouse’s share of the number holder’s
estate if the number holder were to die intestate. 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(1)(A); 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.345; POMS GN 00210.004A. At the time of the NH’s death, the couple resided in Massachusetts. Massachusetts
inheritance laws, at that time, provided that a “surviving husband or wife” shall
be entitled to a share of the deceased’s estate if not disposed of by will. Mass.
Gen. Laws Ann. ch.190, § 1 (2007). [1] As a result, we must determine if the claimant could be recognized as the husband
or wife (spouse) of the NH for purposes of Massachusetts inheritance law.
In 2004, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts defined marriage as “the voluntary
union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others.” Goodridge , 440 Mass. at 343 (internal quotation omitted). As noted above, Massachusetts has
permitted same-sex marriage since the Goodridge decision took effect on May 17, 2004. Id. at 309.
Although the claimant and the NH entered into a civil union in Vermont in 2001—three
years before same-sex marriage was legalized in Massachusetts—a recent decision from
the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts strongly suggests that the couple’s Vermont
civil union would be considered “functionally identical” to a marriage for purposes
of establishing the rights and obligations created by the civil union. Elia-Warnken v. Elia, 463 Mass. 29, 33 (2012).
In Elia-Warnkin, the Court acknowledged “the general rule that the validity of a marriage is governed
by the law of the State where the marriage is contracted.” 463 Mass. at 32 (quoting
Cote-Whitacre v. Department of Pub. Health, 446 Mass. 350, 369 (2006) (Spina, J. concurring)). With respect to out-of-state
marriages, the Court then explained, “As such, we ordinarily extend recognition to
out-of-State marriages under principles of comity, even if such marriages would be prohibited here, unless the marriage violates Massachusetts public policy, including polygamy, consanguinity
and affinity. G.L. c. 207, §§ 1, 2, 4.” Elia-Warnkin, 463 Mass. at 32 (emphasis supplied) (citing Commonwealth v. Lane, 113 Mass. 458, 463 (1873). In this case, it is clear that at the time of the NH’s
death in 2007, recognition of a legal relationship between a same-sex couples was
not contrary to public policy, because Massachusetts has permitted same-sex marriage
since the Goodridge decision took effect in 2004. Goodridge, supra at 309.
In discussing Vermont civil unions, the Elia-Warnkin Court noted the Commonwealth’s definition of marriage as “the voluntary union of
two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others” (quoting Goodridge, supra at 343), continuing, “[t]his is the relationship established by Vermont civil
unions” and concluding that, “[b]y that definition alone, a Vermont civil union is the functional equivalent of a marriage.” Elia-Warnkin, supra at 33 (emphasis supplied). The court then concluded that Massachusetts would
“recognize a Vermont civil union as the equivalent of marriage under principles of
comity.” Id. at 35.
We believe the analysis in Elia-Warnkin would also have applied to the facts of this claim because: (1) as with this claim,
the Elia-Warnkin Court recognized a civil union that had occurred prior to the legalization of same-sex
marriage in Massachusetts as the equivalent of marriage; and (2) rights and obligations
afforded by civil unions in Vermont, which conveyed the same benefits, protections,
and responsibilities as a civil marriage, had not changed between 2000 and 2009. [2] As noted above, the Elia-Warnkin Court concluded that a Vermont civil union that occurred prior to the legalization
of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts was equivalent to marriage. Thus, the fact that
the claimant and the NH entered into a civil union in Vermont prior to same-sex marriage
legalization in Massachusetts does not alter the application of the analysis to this
case.
Additionally, the nature of the benefits, protections, and responsibilities of a Vermont
civil union had not changed from the time of the NH’s civil union to the time of the
Elia-Warnkin union. The couple in Elia-Warnkin entered into a civil union on April 19, 2003. Elia-Warnkin, supra at 30. The NH and the claimant entered into a civil union on May 4, 2001.
Although the couple’s civil union predates the Elia-Warnkin civil union, the laws governing the rights and responsibilities that attach to such
unions had not changed. See Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 1202 (2000) (portions repealed by Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 15,
§ 8 (2009)); see Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 1204(a) (2000) (“Parties to a civil union shall have all
the same benefits, protections, and responsibilities under law … as are granted to
spouses in a civil marriage.”).
Based on those factors, we believe the reasoning used by the Elia-Warnkin court would apply equally to this claim and that, while the Elia-Warnkin case involved a petition for dissolution of marriage, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
would have extended other marital rights and obligations, such as intestate inheritance,
to these facts.
CONCLUSION
We believe that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts would have permitted the claimant
to inherit as a spouse had the NH died intestate. As a result, the claimant can be
recognized as the NH’s surviving spouse for purposes of determining entitlement to
benefits as a surviving spouse.
Karen Burzycki
Supervisory Attorney
By: ____________________
Candace H. Lawrence
Assistant Regional Counsel