Mary Spearman v. Viva Spearman
482 F.2d 1203 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When determining the beneficiary of a federal life insurance policy, courts apply the law of the insured's domicile at death to identify the legal "widow." To qualify as a "putative spouse" entitled to a share of the proceeds, a claimant must demonstrate an objectively reasonable good faith belief in the validity of their marriage, based on the facts known to them.
Facts:
- On October 2, 1946, Edward Spearman married Mary Spearman in Alabama, and they had two children.
- Mary Spearman later secured a support decree against Edward Spearman.
- On June 7, 1962, Edward Spearman married Viva Spearman in California, while still legally married to Mary Spearman.
- Viva Spearman knew that Edward had previously fathered two children with Mary, that Mary and the children used the Spearman surname, and about the support decree.
- Viva Spearman was also aware that Edward Spearman returned to Alabama each year on vacation to live in the same house with Mary Spearman and their children.
- On October 1, 1969, Edward Spearman died while insured by a Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance policy.
- The policy did not name a specific beneficiary and provided that proceeds would be paid to the insured's "widow."
Procedural Posture:
- Metropolitan Life Insurance Company filed an interpleader action in the United States District Court against defendants Mary Spearman and Viva Spearman.
- The insurer deposited the proceeds of the life insurance policy into the registry of the District Court.
- The District Court ruled in favor of Mary Spearman, finding her to be the lawful widow and that Viva Spearman did not qualify as a putative spouse.
- Viva Spearman, as appellant, appealed the judgment of the District Court to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a dispute between two successive spouses, does the first spouse overcome the presumption of the second marriage's validity by showing no record of divorce in known domiciles, and does the second spouse qualify as a "putative spouse" if their belief in the marriage's validity was not objectively reasonable?
Opinions:
Majority - Roney, Circuit Judge
No. When the first spouse shows no evidence of dissolution, she remains the legal widow, and a second spouse cannot qualify as a putative spouse if her belief in the marriage's validity was objectively unreasonable. The court determined that federal law does not define "widow," requiring an application of state law from the insured's domicile at death, which was California. Under California law, a second marriage is presumed valid, but this is a rebuttable presumption. Mary Spearman successfully rebutted it by providing evidence that no divorce or annulment had occurred in any jurisdiction where she or Edward had been domiciled. The burden then shifted to Viva Spearman to prove the first marriage was dissolved, which she failed to do, establishing Mary as the legal "widow." The court further held that Viva did not qualify as a "putative spouse" because her belief in the marriage's validity was not in good faith. The court adopted an objective test for good faith, holding that the belief must be reasonable based on the facts known to the claimant. Given Viva's knowledge of Edward's first family, the support decree, and his annual visits to live with them, her belief that her marriage was valid was not objectively reasonable.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for establishing an objective standard for the "good faith" requirement in the putative spouse doctrine under California law, as interpreted by the federal court. It clarifies that a claimant cannot simply assert a subjective belief in their marriage's validity while ignoring substantial contrary evidence. This ruling reinforces the legal priority of a valid, undissolved first marriage and protects the property rights of the legal spouse against subsequent partners who have reason to question the validity of their own marital status. For future cases involving federal benefits and competing spousal claims, this case solidifies the choice-of-law rule (domicile at death) and the burden-shifting framework for proving marital status.
