Lexplug logoLexplug

Stein v. Stein

Missouri Court of Appeals
641 S.W.2d 856, 1982 Mo. App. LEXIS 3292 (1982)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A state that has statutorily abolished common-law marriage will not recognize such a marriage between its own residents, even if the marriage was allegedly formed while the couple was temporarily in a state that recognizes common-law marriage, because doing so would violate the home state's strong public policy.


Facts:

  • Nana Stein and John A. Stein began living together in John's apartment in Kansas City, Missouri, around September 1978.
  • Throughout their relationship, both Nana and John were residents of and domiciled in Missouri.
  • In April 1979, the couple took a three-week bus tour of the East, which included travel through Pennsylvania, a state that recognizes common-law marriage.
  • Nana Stein alleged that while in Philadelphia, she and John Stein exchanged rings and marriage vows.
  • Both before and after the bus tour, the couple held themselves out to others as husband and wife.
  • They lived together in Missouri for a total of approximately fifteen months.
  • Following John A. Stein's death, Nana sought legal recognition as his surviving spouse.

Procedural Posture:

  • Nana Stein filed applications for allowances in the probate court, asserting she was the surviving spouse of the deceased, John A. Stein.
  • The trial court held an evidentiary hearing.
  • The trial court found that Nana Stein and John A. Stein were not married and denied her applications.
  • Nana Stein (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District.

Locked

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 Missouri law recognize a common-law marriage between two Missouri residents when the marriage was allegedly formed during a temporary visit to a state that recognizes common-law marriage?


Opinions:

Majority - Turnage, Judge

No. Missouri law does not recognize a common-law marriage between its own residents under these circumstances because it would violate the state's public policy. Citing Hesington v. Hesington, the court reasoned that Missouri statute § 451.040.5 explicitly declares common-law marriages 'null and void.' Recognizing a common-law marriage formed by Missouri residents during a temporary sojourn in a state like Pennsylvania would defeat the very purpose of this statute. The court held that the state's strong public policy against common-law marriage for its domiciliaries outweighs the general principle of recognizing marriages validly formed in other states.



Analysis:

This decision solidifies a public policy exception to the traditional conflict of laws rule of 'lex loci celebrationis' (the law of the place of ceremony). It establishes that a state's strong, statutorily expressed policy can override the recognition of a marital status legally created elsewhere, at least concerning its own domiciliaries. This prevents residents from circumventing their home state's marriage laws through temporary travel. The case affirms that states retain significant control over the marital status of their own citizens, even when interstate travel is involved.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Stein v. Stein (1982)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"