In re the Marriage of Edi L. HOGSETT v. Marcia E. NEALE
478 P.3d 713 (2021)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A common law marriage is established by the mutual consent or agreement of the couple to enter into the legal and social institution of marriage, followed by conduct manifesting that agreement. The core inquiry is whether the parties mutually intended to share a life together as spouses in a committed, intimate relationship of mutual support and obligation, assessed under the totality of the circumstances.
Facts:
- Edi L. Hogsett and Marcia E. Neale were in a romantic relationship from November 2001 to November 2014.
- During their relationship, they exchanged rings; Hogsett considered it a marriage ceremony, while Neale viewed it as an exchange of commitment rings.
- The couple cohabitated, purchased a custom home together, maintained joint bank and credit accounts, and worked with a financial advisor as a couple.
- Hogsett designated Neale as a primary beneficiary and domestic partner on her 401(k) and as her life partner on a medical record.
- Neale consistently expressed to Hogsett and others her personal belief that she did not believe in the institution of marriage.
- Neale never referred to Hogsett as her wife and never listed herself as married on any legal, financial, or medical documents.
- After their separation, the parties jointly mediated a separation agreement which stated they had entered into a common law marriage on December 1, 2002.
Procedural Posture:
- Edi Hogsett and Marcia Neale initially filed a joint pro se petition for dissolution of marriage in the Arapahoe County District Court (a state trial court).
- After the trial court informed them it first needed to find that a marriage existed, the parties stipulated to dismiss the petition.
- Hogsett later filed a second petition for dissolution of marriage in the same court.
- Neale filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that the parties were never married under common law.
- The district court held a hearing, found that no common law marriage existed due to a lack of mutual agreement, and granted Neale's motion to dismiss.
- Hogsett (as appellant) appealed the dismissal to the Colorado Court of Appeals (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The Supreme Court of Colorado (the state's highest court) granted Hogsett's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the case.
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 common law marriage exist where one party credibly testifies that she never intended to be married, despite the couple having a long-term, committed relationship with many traditional indicia of marriage?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Márquez
No. A common law marriage did not exist because there was no mutual agreement between the parties to enter a marital relationship. The court refined the prior test from People v. Lucero, which was outdated and ill-suited for modern relationships, particularly same-sex couples. The new framework focuses on the couple's mutual intent to be married, which can be proven by an express agreement or inferred from conduct viewed under the totality of the circumstances. While Hogsett and Neale had many indicia of a committed partnership, such as joint finances and property, the trial court's finding that Neale credibly did not believe in or intend to be married was dispositive. Because the intent to marry was not mutual, a core requirement for a common law marriage was not met, and the trial court's conclusion is affirmed.
Concurring - Justice Hart
Yes, I agree that no common law marriage existed, and I fully join the majority's opinion. However, I write separately to express my view that the doctrine of common law marriage should be abolished prospectively by the legislature. The historical justifications for the doctrine are no longer relevant in a society with easy access to licensed marriage and different social norms regarding cohabitation and child-rearing. The current doctrine leads to unpredictable, inconsistent, and costly litigation that is invasive to the parties' lives.
Concurring - Chief Justice Boatright
I concur in the judgment only. The majority unnecessarily created a new test for common law marriage in violation of judicial restraint. This case could have been resolved on the dispositive fact that there was no mutual intent to marry; the trial court made a credibility determination that Neale did not intend to be married, a fact Hogsett herself acknowledged. Because this lack of mutual intent is fatal to the common law marriage claim, there was no need to analyze any factors, new or old. In deciding more than was necessary, the majority risks further confusing an already complex area of law.
Concurring - Justice Samour
I concur in the judgment only. As a matter of law, the parties could not have formed the requisite mutual intent to enter a legal marriage in Colorado during the time of their relationship, because same-sex marriage was not legally recognized. Even with the retroactive application of Obergefell, the parties' intent at the time could not have been to enter a legally sanctioned marriage that did not exist. Therefore, no common law marriage could have been formed.
Analysis:
This case significantly modernizes Colorado's common law marriage doctrine, replacing the rigid, heteronormative factors from People v. Lucero with a flexible, intent-focused analysis. The new framework is better suited to evaluate diverse modern relationships, including those of same-sex couples. By emphasizing the totality of the circumstances and the context-dependent nature of evidence, the decision directs lower courts to conduct a more nuanced inquiry into whether the parties truly intended to be spouses. This shift makes the subjective intent of both parties the paramount issue, potentially making it more difficult to establish a common law marriage where one party consistently maintained they did not wish to be married, regardless of outward appearances.
Unlock the full brief for In re the Marriage of Edi L. HOGSETT v. Marcia E. NEALE