Sullivan v. Sullivan
413 P.2d 988, 1966 Kan. LEXIS 336, 196 Kan. 705 (1966)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a common-law marriage to be valid, the parties must have a present intent and agreement to be married, not merely an agreement to marry in the future, and must consistently hold themselves out to the public as husband and wife.
Facts:
- In early 1946, Henry Sullivan, a divorced man, began dating Hazel Walden, a widow.
- In July 1947, after Henry asked Hazel to marry him and she agreed, she moved in with him on his farm, where they lived together and shared a bed until 1963.
- Throughout their cohabitation, the couple frequently discussed getting married in the future but never set a specific date.
- The couple held themselves out as married to some people, such as on trips and to Hazel's relatives, but Henry repeatedly told his own children and his attorney that they were not married.
- Henry's will, prepared in 1960 and again in 1963, referred to Hazel as his 'housekeeper, Hazel Walden,' and bequeathed her $1,000.
- On February 14, 1963, Henry conveyed his real estate by warranty deed to his children from a prior marriage.
- On April 5, 1963, while Henry was in the hospital, he and Hazel were formally married in a ceremony performed by a minister.
- Henry Sullivan died on April 22, 1963.
Procedural Posture:
- Hazel Sullivan (plaintiff) filed an action against Charles Sullivan, Fern Brandt, and Esther Hutchinson (defendants) in the Kansas district court (trial court).
- The plaintiff sought possession of a homestead and partition of other real estate, claiming she was the common-law wife of the defendants' deceased father.
- The case was tried before the district court judge without a jury.
- The district court entered a judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that no common-law marriage existed between Hazel and Henry Sullivan.
- The plaintiff, Hazel Sullivan, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Kansas.
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 when a couple cohabitates for many years and agrees to marry in the future, but lacks a present marriage agreement and fails to consistently hold themselves out to the public as husband and wife?
Opinions:
Majority - O'Connor, J.
No. A common-law marriage does not exist because the parties' agreement was one of future assent to marry with cohabitation (per verba de futuro cum copula), which is not recognized as a valid marriage in Kansas. The court applied the three-part test for a common-law marriage: (1) capacity to marry, (2) a present marriage agreement, and (3) a holding out to the public as husband and wife. While capacity was not disputed, the court found the other two elements were not met. Hazel's own testimony that they 'were talking about getting married in the future' defeated the claim of a present agreement. Furthermore, the couple did not mutually hold themselves out as married; Henry repeatedly denied the marriage to his family and in legal documents, such as his will and an accident report, where he listed her as Hazel Walden. The court deferred to the trial court's findings of fact, as they were supported by substantial, competent evidence, even though conflicting evidence existed.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the stringent requirements for establishing a common-law marriage, emphasizing the critical distinction between a present agreement to be married (per verba de praesenti) and an agreement to marry in the future. The case serves as a precedent that cohabitation, even for a prolonged period, is insufficient without clear evidence of both a present marital agreement and a consistent, mutual holding out to the public. It also underscores the high degree of deference appellate courts give to a trial court's factual findings, particularly when evidence is conflicting, making it difficult to overturn such findings on appeal.
