In Re the Estate of Ober
62 P.3d 1114, 2003 MT 7, 314 Mont. 20 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A common-law marriage is established when the party asserting its existence proves three elements: 1) the parties were competent to marry, 2) they assumed a marital relationship by mutual consent and agreement, and 3) they confirmed their marriage by cohabitation and public repute, with appellate courts giving significant deference to the trial court's assessment of conflicting evidence and witness credibility.
Facts:
- Selma Klein and John Ober cohabited in Selma's home for several years before John's death.
- Selma testified that in 1987, John proposed marriage, she accepted, and they exchanged rings.
- Throughout their relationship, John and Selma maintained separate property and bank accounts.
- John and Selma consistently filed their income taxes under the status of 'single'.
- John carried a photograph of Selma in his wallet on the back of which he had written the words 'my wife'.
- The couple used address labels which read 'John or Selma Ober'.
- John did not list Selma as his spouse with his employer or as a beneficiary on his life insurance policy.
- John died on September 30, 2001, without a formal will.
Procedural Posture:
- After John Ober's death, his brother, Joseph Ober, was informally appointed as the personal representative of John's intestate estate by the Clerk of the District Court.
- Selma Klein filed an objection to Joseph's appointment, asserting she was John's surviving spouse.
- Selma filed a petition in the Ninth Judicial District Court, Teton County, to be appointed personal representative.
- The District Court conducted a bench trial to determine whether Selma was John's common-law wife.
- The District Court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law, ruling that Selma was the common-law wife of John and granted her petition.
- Joseph Ober, as appellant, appealed the District Court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Montana.
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 valid common-law marriage exist when a couple cohabited, exchanged rings, and held themselves out to some as married, despite maintaining separate finances and filing taxes as 'single'?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Cotter
Yes. A valid common-law marriage exists because there was sufficient evidence of mutual consent and public repute, despite conflicting evidence. The court applied the three-part test for a common-law marriage: competence, mutual consent, and cohabitation/public repute. Competence and cohabitation were conceded by the parties. On the issue of mutual consent, the court found Selma's testimony about the proposal and rings, combined with physical evidence like the photograph inscribed with 'my wife' and the joint address labels, constituted substantial evidence of an agreement to be married. The court held that modern practices like maintaining separate finances, filing taxes as single, or not changing a last name do not negate consent, citing its precedent in Alcorn. Regarding public repute, the court acknowledged the conflicting testimony from various witnesses but deferred to the trial court's assessment of witness credibility, as the trial court was in the best position to observe the witnesses. Concluding that the trial court's findings were not clearly erroneous, the court affirmed the existence of the common-law marriage.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the principle that determining a common-law marriage is a highly fact-intensive inquiry where the trial court's findings on witness credibility are given great weight. It establishes that circumstantial evidence of an agreement to be married (like a photo with 'my wife' written on it) can overcome contrary evidence such as filing taxes as 'single' or maintaining separate finances. This decision signals that courts will look past certain modern financial and social conventions to find a marriage based on the parties' intent and public representation, aligning with the public policy favoring the finding of a valid marriage.
