Butler v. Butler
1930 Kan. LEXIS 132, 285 P. 627, 130 Kan. 186 (1930)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A valid common-law marriage requires the parties to hold themselves out to the public as married. A private agreement to be married, even when followed by cohabitation, is insufficient to establish a common-law marriage if the parties consistently represent themselves to the community as single.
Facts:
- In 1910, Louisa Steinborn and Charles R. Butler allegedly made a private agreement in Oklahoma to be husband and wife.
- Following the alleged agreement, Steinborn and Butler lived together for approximately 15 years on a farm in Kansas owned by Butler.
- During this period, Steinborn consistently represented herself to the community as 'Miss Louisa Steinborn,' a single woman.
- Steinborn executed legal documents, such as mortgages on her own property, as a single woman and applied for government insurance benefits as a dependent, single woman.
- The couple's general reputation in the community was that they were unmarried and that Steinborn was Butler's housekeeper.
- Steinborn admitted in testimony that they held themselves out as married only to each other, 'but not to the world.'
- Representing himself as a single man, Butler mortgaged the farm on which he and Steinborn resided.
- After Butler defaulted on the mortgage, the property was sold at a foreclosure sale to George Lenhart.
Procedural Posture:
- Louisa Steinborn filed suit against George Lenhart in a Kansas trial court, seeking to quiet title to a farm and cancel Lenhart's deed.
- The case was tried by the court after a jury was waived.
- The trial court found that no common-law marriage existed between Steinborn and Charles R. Butler.
- The trial court entered judgment in favor of Lenhart, quieting title to the farm in his name.
- Steinborn and Butler, as appellants, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Kansas.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a private agreement between a man and woman to be married, followed by cohabitation, create a valid common-law marriage when the parties continuously and deliberately hold themselves out to the public as single individuals?
Opinions:
Majority - Dawson, J.
No. A private agreement to be married, even with cohabitation, does not create a valid common-law marriage if the parties consistently hold themselves out to the public as single. The court affirmed the trial court's finding that no consensual marriage ever existed, as the evidence overwhelmingly contradicted Steinborn's claim. Her actions, including signing legal documents as a single woman, using the title 'Miss,' and her explicit admission that their alleged marriage was kept secret from the world, demonstrated the absence of a key element of common-law marriage. Citing precedent, the court emphasized that 'habit and repute'—the public acknowledgment and reputation of being married—is a distinguishing, if not essential, feature of a common-law marriage. Parties must live together 'professedly' in that relation, and secrecy or denial of the marital status is strong evidence that no marriage was ever truly formed.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that public acknowledgment is a critical evidentiary component for proving a common-law marriage in Kansas. It serves to prevent parties from claiming a 'secret' marriage for strategic advantage, thereby protecting the interests of third parties who rely on individuals' public representations of their marital status in property and commercial transactions. The case establishes that a court will weigh the parties' public conduct and reputation as more significant than their private, self-serving testimony about an alleged marriage agreement. This reinforces the idea that common-law marriage is not merely a private contract but a public status that must be demonstrated through open conduct.
