Cronsberg v. Hurt
No reporter information provided (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish a valid common-law marriage under South Carolina law, the proponent must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that there was a clear, mutual intent and agreement on the part of both parties to enter into a marriage contract.
Facts:
- Sandra Jennings and William Hurt met in 1981 and began living together in New York City.
- From October 31, 1982, to January 10, 1983, Jennings joined Hurt in South Carolina where he was filming a movie.
- While they were in South Carolina, Hurt was still married to another woman; his divorce became final on December 3, 1982.
- During their time in South Carolina, Jennings became pregnant, and Hurt allegedly told her during an argument that they had a "spiritual marriage" and were "married in the eyes of God."
- In 1983, after leaving South Carolina, Hurt filed an affidavit with the Putative Fathers’ Registry in New York to acknowledge his paternity of Jennings's child.
- In 1984, drafts of a relationship agreement between the parties continued to include language such as "whether or not the parties hereafter marry each other."
- Other documents introduced as evidence listed Hurt as single and Jennings as his "friend."
Procedural Posture:
- Sandra Jennings filed a complaint against William Hurt in the Supreme Court, New York County, a trial-level court.
- Jennings moved for leave to amend her complaint to add three new causes of action.
- The trial court denied Jennings's motion for leave to amend her complaint.
- The case proceeded to a nonjury trial on the issue of whether a common-law marriage existed.
- The trial court found that Jennings was not the common-law wife of Hurt.
- Jennings appealed both the denial of her motion to amend and the trial court's final order to the Supreme Court, Appellate Division.
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 under South Carolina law when the parties' actions, such as executing documents listing themselves as single and contemplating future marriage, contradict one party's claim that there was a mutual agreement to be married?
Opinions:
Majority - Unanimous Memorandum Opinion (Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Milonas, Rosenberger and Smith, JJ.)
No. A common-law marriage does not exist under South Carolina law because the evidence failed to establish a mutual intent or agreement between the parties to enter into a marriage contract. South Carolina law, as stated in Ex Parte Blizzard, requires a clear "intention on the part of both parties to enter into a marriage contract." The court found Jennings's claims were not supported by the record, noting her failure to mention the alleged "spiritual marriage" conversation during her deposition. More importantly, the parties' actions contradicted any intent to be married. Hurt's filing with the Putative Fathers’ Registry would have been unnecessary if they were married. Furthermore, drafts of a relationship agreement a year after they left South Carolina still contemplated the possibility of future marriage, and other documents identified them as single. Citing Collier v. City of Milford, the court emphasized that "[o]ne cannot be married unwittingly or accidentally," and the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated that no mutual agreement to be married ever existed.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high evidentiary burden required to prove the existence of a common-law marriage. It clarifies that subjective feelings or ambiguous statements, such as having a "spiritual marriage," are insufficient without objective, corroborating evidence of a mutual agreement. The court's focus on the parties' subsequent actions and legal documents—like the paternity filing and draft agreements—establishes that conduct inconsistent with marital status can defeat a common-law marriage claim. This case serves as a precedent for how courts will weigh conflicting evidence, prioritizing objective actions and formal documents over self-serving testimony about private conversations when determining marital intent.
Unlock the full brief for Cronsberg v. Hurt