Winfield v. Renfro
1991 WL 202268, 821 S.W.2d 640 (1991)
Rule of Law:
To establish a common-law marriage in Texas, all three statutory elements—agreement to be married, living together in this state as husband and wife, and representing to others in this state that they were married—must coexist at the same point in time; the omission of the geographical 'there' or 'in Texas' from a jury instruction on the 'holding out' element constitutes reversible error if the evidence on that specific point is close and factually insufficient.
Facts:
- David Winfield and Sandra Renfro began an intimate relationship around 1975-1976.
- In January 1982, Sandra became pregnant with David's child, Shanel, during a trip to South America with David.
- David expressed concern about his public image if he fathered a child before marriage but wished for the child to be legitimate, prompting discussions about an informal marriage.
- In early April 1982, David suggested an informal marriage ceremony and instructed Sandra to meet him in Dallas on April 11, 1982, and to reserve a honeymoon suite under 'Mr. & Mrs. David Winfield'.
- David and Sandra stayed at the Amfac Hotel in Dallas for three days around April 11, 1982.
- In April 1982, David told Sandra to search for a home for them in Houston, and he subsequently purchased a condominium there in the summer of 1982.
- Sandra moved into the Houston condominium in August 1982 with her son and later her daughter Shanel; the mailbox at the condominium bore the name 'Winfield'.
- During this period, Sandra identified herself as single on health insurance applications and income tax returns, and signed her daughter's birth certificate using the name 'Renfro', not 'Winfield', following David's instructions.
Procedural Posture:
- Sandra Renfro sued David Winfield for divorce, alleging a common-law marriage existed between them.
- Winfield denied the existence of any marriage.
- The trial court ordered separate trials on the issues, first to determine the existence of a common-law marriage, and then to address divorce and property division.
- A jury trial was held on the common-law marriage issue.
- The jury found from a preponderance of the evidence that Renfro and Winfield entered into an informal or common-law marriage on or about April 11, 1982.
- The trial court entered a judgment establishing a common-law marriage and granting them a divorce.
- Winfield appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.), arguing against the finding of a common-law marriage and other issues.
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 trial court commit reversible error by omitting the geographical phrase 'in Texas' or 'there' from a jury instruction on the 'representation to others' element of common-law marriage, when the evidence regarding 'holding out' within the specified timeframe and location is factually insufficient to support the jury's finding?
Opinions:
Majority - O’Connor, Justice
Yes, a trial court commits reversible error by omitting the geographical 'there' from a jury instruction on the 'representation to others' element of common-law marriage when the evidence on 'holding out' in Texas around the specified date is close and contested, and the evidence is factually insufficient to support the jury's finding on that element. The court found that the jury charge erroneously omitted the word 'there' from the third element of common-law marriage, which requires parties to 'there represented to others that they were married' (referring to 'in this state'). This omission was crucial because the evidence for Winfield and Renfro representing themselves as married in Texas on or about April 11, 1982, was 'close and contested' and ultimately factually insufficient. The court referenced Texas Family Code Ann. § 1.91(a)(2) and emphasized that 'holding out' must occur in Texas. The court distinguished its prior decision in In re Estate of Giessel (where a common-law marriage was affirmed despite some secrecy due to 20 years of cohabitation and widespread community reputation) from the present facts and from Ex parte Threet (where occasional introductions did not establish holding out for a largely secret marriage). Here, the court found the evidence of Winfield's active holding out as married in Texas on or about the specified date to be scant and primarily based on Renfro's unilateral actions or testimony, which was often contradicted. Renfro's actions, such as listing herself as single on tax returns and insurance applications and using her maiden name for her daughter's birth certificate, further undermined the 'holding out' claim. The court concluded that occasional introductions do not establish the element of holding out, and a marriage that is largely secret is not a common-law marriage, which is inherently a public status. The judgment was reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Dissenting - Mirabal, Justice
No, the evidence was factually sufficient to support the jury's finding that Winfield and Renfro represented to others they were married on or about April 11, 1982, and the omission of 'in Texas' from the jury charge was harmless error. Justice Mirabal concurred with the majority on the legal sufficiency of all three common-law marriage elements (agreement, cohabitation, and holding out) but disagreed on the factual insufficiency of 'holding out' and the harmfulness of the jury instruction error. The dissent argued that the jury, as the sole judge of witness credibility and the weight of evidence, was entitled to believe Renfro's account. This account included: Renfro reserving a Dallas hotel suite as 'Mr. & Mrs. David Winfield' as instructed by David; their three-day stay in a honeymoon suite with champagne; Renfro telling her mother they were married shortly thereafter; David purchasing a Houston condo for them with 'Winfield' on the mailbox; David's 'husbandly' actions around the house; David referring to Renfro's son as his stepson; neighbors believing they were married; and David introducing Renfro as his wife in the Bahamas (though the majority considered this too remote). The dissent maintained that all evidence of 'holding out' directly related to the critical date of April 11, 1982, involved activities in Texas, and out-of-state conduct only served to corroborate the Texas marriage. Therefore, the omission of 'in Texas' from the jury charge, while erroneous, was harmless because it did not likely cause an improper judgment, given that the jury's focus would naturally be on the Texas-based events around the specified date.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the strict 'in this state' requirement for all elements of a common-law marriage in Texas, particularly the 'holding out' element. It underscores that while an agreement to marry and cohabitation might occur, the public representation of marriage must substantially take place within Texas and be concurrent with the other elements. The ruling also highlights the critical importance of precisely worded jury instructions in highly contested factual disputes, where even minor omissions can lead to reversible error, especially when evidence for a key element is factually marginal.
