817 S.E.2d 339
Va. Ct. App.2018Background
- Parties: Appellant Bartholomew D.S. Porter (D.C. resident) and appellee Eileen Porter (Virginia resident); wedding ceremony occurred in Washington, D.C. on Feb. 25, 2006.
- The couple obtained a Virginia marriage license on Feb. 24, 2006; the officiant listed the ceremony as in Arlington, Virginia, though no Virginia ceremony occurred.
- They exchanged vows in D.C., held a reception, were publicly presented as husband and wife, spent one night together in a D.C. hotel, then returned to separate residences the next day.
- In May 2006 they began cohabiting in Virginia, filed joint tax returns, and acquired a home titled as tenants by the entirety; they separated in Sept. 2015.
- Procedural posture: Porter sued for divorce (Oct. 2016); appellee moved for declaration of marital status; circuit court ruled the Virginia ceremony was void ab initio and that the one-night D.C. hotel stay was insufficient to establish a D.C. common-law marriage; complaint for divorce dismissed; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the parties formed a valid common-law marriage under D.C. law based on the Feb. 25–26, 2006 ceremony and overnight stay in D.C. | Porter: The expressed present-tense vows plus the overnight hotel stay constituted cohabitation and an express mutual agreement sufficient for a D.C. common-law marriage. | Eileen: The one-night hotel stay was a brief, transitory contact with D.C. and did not satisfy the cohabitation element required for D.C. common-law marriage. | Court: Agreement element proven (present-tense vows) but cohabitation not proven; one-night stay insufficient — common-law marriage in D.C. not established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Levick v. MacDougall, 294 Va. 283 (Va. 2017) (strong presumption favoring validity of marriages)
- Farah v. Farah, 16 Va. App. 329 (Va. Ct. App. 1993) (Virginia does not create common-law marriages but recognizes valid common-law marriages from other jurisdictions)
- Coates v. Watts, 622 A.2d 25 (D.C. 1993) (elements for D.C. common-law marriage: cohabitation plus express present-tense agreement)
- Bansda v. Wheeler (In re Ekekwe), 995 A.2d 189 (D.C. 2010) (D.C. recognizes common-law marriages; close scrutiny warranted when ceremonial marriage available)
- Kelderhaus v. Kelderhaus, 21 Va. App. 721 (Va. Ct. App. 1996) (brief, transitory stays in a common-law state insufficient to establish common-law marriage)
- Crane v. Puller, 899 A.2d 879 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2006) (discussing when short-duration cohabitation plus reputation might create jury question under another state’s common-law marriage rules)