Hargrave v. Duval-Couetil
2010 S.D. LEXIS 4, 2010 SD 2, 777 N.W.2d 380 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state that does not permit common-law marriage will recognize one validly contracted in another jurisdiction, but the proponent must prove by clear and convincing evidence that all elements required by the foreign jurisdiction’s law, including a mutual agreement to marry, were satisfied. A foreign legal status like a Mexican concubinage, which does not confer all the rights and duties of marriage, is not the legal equivalent of a common-law marriage.
Facts:
- In 1994, Paul A. Duval and Karen Hargrave began living together.
- In 1996, Hargrave moved into Duval's home in Custer, South Dakota, which became their primary residence.
- Beginning in 1997, the couple established a routine of spending summers in South Dakota and winters in Nuevo Leon, Mexico.
- In 1998, Duval and Hargrave purchased a home together in Mexico, taking title as husband and wife.
- Throughout their relationship, Duval referred to Hargrave as his wife on documents such as an income tax form, a VA health benefits application, and a general power of attorney.
- In 2005, following an assault on Duval in Mexico, Hargrave cared for him and they temporarily relocated to Oklahoma for his medical rehabilitation.
- The couple never participated in a formal wedding ceremony, mutually deciding against it because they felt they were already married.
- On June 24, 2008, Duval died in a rock climbing accident in Custer County, South Dakota.
Procedural Posture:
- Following Paul A. Duval's death, Karen Hargrave initiated proceedings in a South Dakota circuit court to be recognized as his surviving spouse for inheritance purposes.
- Duval's daughters, Nathalie Duval-Couetil and Orielle Duval-Georgiades, contested Hargrave's claim.
- The circuit court (the trial court) found in favor of Hargrave, concluding that a valid common-law marriage had been established under the laws of both Mexico and Oklahoma.
- The circuit court entered a judgment declaring Hargrave to be Duval's surviving spouse.
- The Daughters, as appellants, appealed the circuit court's judgment to the Supreme Court of South Dakota, with Hargrave as the appellee.
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 couple domiciled in South Dakota, a state that has abolished common-law marriage, form a valid common-law marriage under the laws of either Mexico or Oklahoma by spending time there and holding themselves out as married, thereby entitling the surviving partner to inherit as a spouse?
Opinions:
Majority - Meierhenry, Justice
No. The relationship did not constitute a valid common-law marriage under the laws of either Mexico or Oklahoma because the essential legal elements required by those jurisdictions were not met. First, South Dakota will recognize a common-law marriage if it was validly contracted in a jurisdiction that allows it, regardless of the couple's domicile. However, the relationship in Nuevo Leon, Mexico, was a 'concubinage,' which, while granting some rights, is not the legal equivalent of a marriage under Mexican law and thus cannot be recognized as a common-law marriage in South Dakota. Second, while Oklahoma recognizes common-law marriage, it requires clear and convincing evidence of three elements: (1) a mutual agreement to marry, (2) cohabitation, and (3) holding out to the public as husband and wife. Hargrave failed to prove the first and most essential element—an actual and mutual agreement to enter into a matrimonial relation while in Oklahoma. Her testimony described only an 'implicit agreement' and a gradual understanding, not a specific mutual assent or declaration as required by Oklahoma precedent. Therefore, no valid common-law marriage was formed in Oklahoma.
Analysis:
This case clarifies South Dakota's comity doctrine regarding out-of-state common-law marriages, establishing that while domicile is not a barrier, the burden of proof is high. It affirms that the court will strictly scrutinize whether every element of the foreign jurisdiction's law has been met, especially the 'mutual agreement' to marry. The decision sets a precedent that legal relationships from other countries, like a Mexican 'concubinage', that grant some but not all marital rights will not be treated as equivalent to a marriage. This ruling protects states that have abolished common-law marriage from having the status inadvertently created by residents' temporary stays in other jurisdictions without clear intent and agreement.
