318 A.3d 536
D.C.2024Background
- Judy Cleary (plaintiff) sued Douglas Cleary (defendant) for divorce and division of property, alleging they were common law married for four-and-a-half months after a multi-year romantic relationship.
- The parties lived together from late 2016 through September 2019, became engaged in 2019, and allegedly agreed to a common law marriage in a conversation on May 9, 2019.
- Judy claimed Douglas proposed that they be common law married to keep her from breaking up with him, and she agreed; she began using Douglas's surname and asserted they cohabitated as spouses thereafter.
- Douglas denied ever forming a common law marriage, instead maintaining they merely got engaged and planned to wed in the future; he disputed the timing and content of the alleged agreement.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Douglas, finding insufficient evidence of a present-tense marriage agreement, requisite commitment, or cohabitation as spouses post-agreement.
- On appeal, the D.C. Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the evidence, viewed favorably to Judy, raised genuine factual disputes for the factfinder.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of express mutual present agreement to marry | They expressly agreed on May 9 to be common law married | No present-tense agreement ever occurred | Judy's account, if credited, could support finding present agreement |
| Degree of commitment (equivalent to ceremonial marriage) | The context and words show intent for full marital commitment | No evidence of requisite marital commitment; separate finances; didn't hold out as married | Enough evidence for a reasonable factfinder to infer requisite commitment |
| Cohabitation after alleged agreement | Lived together for four-and-a-half months after agreement | Period too brief and circumstances insufficient | Four-and-a-half months sufficient to raise fact question on cohabitation |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment | Disputed facts and credibility issues require trial | No genuine dispute, summary judgment appropriate | Reversed; credibility and factual issues for trial, not summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Pajic v. Foote Props., LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (D.C. 2013) (sworn pleadings treated as affidavit evidence on summary judgment)
- Gill v. Nostrand, 206 A.3d 869 (D.C. 2019) (requirements for establishing common law marriage in D.C.)
- Coates v. Watts, 622 A.2d 25 (D.C. 1993) (present-tense agreement necessary for common law marriage)
- East v. East, 536 A.2d 1103 (D.C. 1988) (present-tense declaration can establish common law marriage; credibility determination for trial court)
- Bansda v. Wheeler, 995 A.2d 189 (D.C. 2010) (brief period of cohabitation can support cohabitation element, if coupled with present agreement)