IVANA CEROVIC v. DUSKO J. STOJKOV
134 A.3d 766, 2016 WL 1078264, 2016 D.C. App. LEXIS 52 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The standard of proof to establish a prior common law marriage between the same two parties who later ceremonially marry is a preponderance of the evidence. Attorney's fees incurred during divorce litigation may not be classified as marital debt for equitable distribution under D.C. Code § 16-910 but must be considered separately under the statute governing 'suit money,' D.C. Code § 16-911.
Facts:
- Ivana Cerovic and Dusko Stojkov, both native Serbians, met in Serbia in early 2003 and quickly began a romantic relationship.
- Cerovic testified that they agreed to live as husband and wife in April 2003, while Stojkov denied this agreement.
- In June 2003, the parties announced their engagement to family and friends in Serbia.
- Stojkov returned to the United States in July 2003, and Cerovic followed in August 2003, living with him in his D.C. apartment for a year until her tourist visa expired.
- After Cerovic obtained a work visa and returned in 2005, the couple moved into a house Stojkov had purchased on T Street in D.C., where they lived together until their separation.
- From 2003 to 2010, evidence of their marital status was contradictory; they referred to each other as spouses on some occasions but filed taxes as 'single' and maintained separate finances.
- On April 15, 2010, the couple participated in a formal wedding ceremony in Las Vegas, which Stojkov stated was partly to aid Cerovic's immigration status.
- The parties separated in November 2010, seven months after their Las Vegas wedding.
Procedural Posture:
- On November 21, 2011, Dusko J. Stojkov filed a complaint for divorce against Ivana Cerovic in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, the trial court of first instance.
- Stojkov alleged a marriage date of April 15, 2010; Cerovic answered by claiming a common law marriage existed since 2003.
- The trial court bifurcated the proceedings, first to determine the date of marriage.
- Cerovic later argued that the couple had formed a 'non-marital cohabitation' under Serbian law, for which the trial court sanctioned her due to untimely notice.
- In a June 3, 2013 order, the trial court ruled against Cerovic, finding no pre-2010 marriage existed, holding she failed to meet a 'clear and convincing evidence' standard.
- Following a second phase, the trial court issued a December 23, 2013 order distributing property based on a 7-month marriage, classifying attorney's fees as marital debt, and denying Cerovic's requests for alimony and attorney's fees.
- Cerovic, as appellant, appealed the trial court's orders to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, the highest court in the jurisdiction. Stojkov is 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 trial court err by applying a 'clear and convincing evidence' standard of proof to an alleged prior common law marriage between the same two parties who later ceremonially marry, and by classifying attorney's fees incurred during the divorce litigation as marital debt subject to equitable distribution?
Opinions:
Majority - Ruiz, Senior Judge
Yes, the trial court erred by applying the wrong standard of proof for the prior common law marriage claim and by improperly classifying attorney's fees as marital debt. First, the heightened 'clear and convincing evidence' standard for proving a prior marriage is intended to rebut the strong presumption of validity of a later marriage to a different person, primarily to avoid findings of bigamy. When the parties to both the alleged common law marriage and the subsequent ceremonial marriage are the same, those policy concerns are absent. Therefore, the proponent of the prior common law marriage need only prove its existence by a preponderance of the evidence. Second, D.C. law provides a specific statutory scheme for awarding attorney's fees ('suit money') in divorce cases under D.C. Code § 16-911, which requires a threshold showing of need. Classifying these fees as 'marital debt' under § 16-910 bypasses this mandatory analysis. Finally, based on principles of comity and the evidence of Serbian law showing a 'non-marital cohabitation' is legally equal to marriage regarding property rights, such a relationship should be treated as a 'marriage' for the purposes of property distribution in D.C.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies two key aspects of D.C. family law. By lowering the standard of proof for a prior common law marriage between the same parties, it makes it easier for spouses to argue for a longer marriage duration, which can dramatically increase the scope of marital property subject to distribution. This impacts cases where couples cohabitate for long periods before a ceremonial wedding. Additionally, the ruling creates a firm and mandatory separation between the equitable distribution of marital debt (§ 16-910) and the award of attorney's fees (§ 16-911), preventing courts from using property division as a substitute for the specific 'suit money' analysis, which is grounded in one party's need and the other's ability to pay.
