Etienne v. DKM Enterprises, Inc.
1982 Cal. App. LEXIS 2032, 136 Cal. App. 3d 487, 186 Cal. Rptr. 321 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A brief sojourn in a state that recognizes common law marriage is insufficient to satisfy the cohabitation requirement needed to form a valid marriage for a couple domiciled in a state that does not recognize such marriages.
Facts:
- Raphel Etienne and Bobby Etienne were California domiciliaries who lived together for over eight years.
- Raphel was injured while attempting to cut down a tree with a chainsaw supplied by the defendant.
- Bobby, alleging she was Raphel's common law wife, sued for negligent infliction of emotional distress and loss of consortium.
- Bobby and Raphel were not legally married in a ceremonial marriage.
- On more than one occasion, the couple vacationed in Texas for periods of seven to eight days.
- While in Texas, they privately agreed they were married and represented to family members there that they were married.
Procedural Posture:
- Raphel and Bobby Etienne filed a complaint against the defendant in a California trial court.
- The defendant moved for summary judgment on the fifth and sixth causes of action, which were brought by Bobby Etienne.
- The trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding the evidence insufficient to establish a common law marriage.
- Bobby Etienne (appellant) appealed the order granting partial summary judgment to the California Court of Appeal.
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 brief vacation by a non-domiciliary couple to a state that recognizes common law marriage satisfy that state's requirement of cohabitation to form a valid marriage?
Opinions:
Majority - Puglia, P. J.
No. A brief vacation by a non-domiciliary couple does not satisfy the cohabitation requirement to form a valid common law marriage. While California recognizes common law marriages validly formed in other states, the formation must comply with the laws of that state. The Texas Family Code requires an agreement to be married, living together in Texas as husband and wife, and representing to others in Texas that they are married. The court found that the Etiennes' brief sojourns in Texas, without any intent to establish domicile or residence, were mere temporary visits and did not constitute 'living together' or 'cohabitation' as required by Texas law. Citing precedent from Texas and other jurisdictions, the court reasoned that this requirement acts as a jurisdictional limitation to prevent mere transients from declaring themselves married under Texas law.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'cohabitation' element required to establish a common law marriage for non-domiciliaries. It prevents couples from states that do not recognize common law marriage, like California, from creating one through 'marriage tourism'—a brief trip to a state that does. The ruling establishes that the cohabitation requirement is substantial and tied to the jurisdiction, demanding more than a temporary presence. This precedent limits the application of comity for common law marriages to couples who have established a genuine residential connection, however brief, to the state in which the marriage was allegedly formed.
