Matter of Estate of Hendrickson
248 Kan. 72, 805 P.2d 20, 1991 Kan. LEXIS 8 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
There is a legal presumption that a person who enters into a marriage has the mental capacity to do so. The burden of proof rests on the party challenging the validity of the marriage to prove mental incapacity, not on the party asserting the marriage's validity to prove capacity.
Facts:
- Delbert Hendrickson, born in 1915, was discharged from the Army in 1944 with a disability pension for either a 'nervous breakdown' or 'back problems,' and he had a history of hospitalizations for what his son understood to be mental illness.
- Delbert's first wife, Irene, who was the stabilizing influence in the family, died in December 1987.
- In March 1988, Delbert (age 73) met Ruby Hendrickson (age 55) and they began a relationship, with Ruby often helping him and staying at his farm.
- During the summer and fall of 1988, Delbert was hospitalized multiple times for serious heart disease.
- In late November 1988, staff at a V.A. hospital in Oklahoma City informed Ruby that Delbert was dying and asked her to visit him.
- On Thanksgiving morning, November 24, 1988, in his hospital room and in the presence of his doctor and a nurse, Delbert asked Ruby to marry him.
- Later that day, the hospital chaplain performed a common-law marriage ceremony for the couple in Delbert's hospital room, an event which was covered by local media.
- Delbert died on December 12, 1988, less than three weeks after the ceremony.
Procedural Posture:
- Ruby M. Hendrickson initiated probate proceedings for Delbert Hendrickson's estate in magistrate court.
- Decedent’s children, Gene R. Hendrickson and Judy L. Martin, contested the probate, challenging Ruby's status as the surviving spouse.
- The magistrate court found in favor of Ruby, upholding the common-law marriage.
- The children, as appellants, appealed to the district court, with Ruby as the appellee.
- The district court reversed the magistrate court, holding that Ruby had failed to carry her burden of proving Delbert's mental capacity.
- Ruby, as appellant, appealed to the Kansas Court of Appeals, with the children as appellees.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment.
- The Kansas Supreme Court granted Ruby's petition for review.
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 the party asserting the existence of a common-law marriage bear the burden of proving that a party to the marriage had the requisite mental capacity, or does the party challenging the marriage on the grounds of incapacity bear the burden of proof?
Opinions:
Majority - McFarland, J.
No. The party challenging a marriage on the grounds of incapacity bears the burden of proof. The law presumes a person is mentally capable of contracting a marriage, and the party alleging incapacity must overcome this presumption. The court reasoned that a general presumption of sanity and competency exists in Kansas law, which should apply to the capacity to marry. Placing the burden on a party seeking to enforce a contract or hold someone accountable to first prove the other party's capacity would be an insurmountable obstacle in litigation. The district court erred by placing the burden of proof on Ruby to prove Delbert's capacity. Since the evidence regarding capacity was equivocal and neither side clearly proved their case, the party with the burden of proof—the children challenging the marriage—must lose.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant procedural rule for challenges to the validity of a marriage based on mental capacity in Kansas. By aligning the capacity to marry with the general legal presumption of competency, the court shifted the evidentiary burden from the proponent of the marriage to the challenger. This decision makes it more difficult to posthumously attack a marriage, thereby protecting the interests of a surviving spouse against claims from other heirs. The ruling clarifies that in cases where evidence of capacity is balanced or unclear, the presumption of validity will prevail unless the challenging party presents sufficient evidence to rebut it.
