94 So. 3d 384
Ala. Civ. App.2012Background
- Edward Dyess filed a complaint to sale and divide real property in Birmingham; the parties had lived together there since purchase.
- Lajune White Dyess counterclaimed for divorce, asserting a common-law marriage with Edward.
- Ore tenus hearing occurred May 24, 2011; Lajune presented evidence first and Edward’s evidence was precluded after she moved to bar it for not answering the counterclaim.
- June 1, 2011 judgment found a common-law marriage, granted Lajune the real property, and assigned debt and mortgage responsibilities to Edward.
- Post-judgment motions were filed; an August 29, 2011 amended order directed sale of a time-share in Mexico and payment of attorney fees to Lajune, with other relief denied.
- On appeal, Edward challenged common-law-marriage finding, improper transfer to domestic-relations division, equitable property division, due process, and admission of evidence; the court reversed as to the marriage finding and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of common-law-marriage evidence | Dyess argues no present, mutual agreement or public recognition existed. | Dyess contends Lajune failed to prove all elements by clear and convincing evidence. | Common-law marriage not proven by clear and convincing evidence. |
| Jurisdiction/venue transfer to domestic-relations division | Edward argues improper transfer affected proceedings. | Lajune contends proper division and processing under domestic-relations rules. | Question left unresolved due to reversal on marriage finding; remand for new proceedings. |
| Equitable division of property | Edward challenges division based on non-marital status and debt allocations. | Lajune seeks property division as if married. | Remanded with instruction to enter judgment consistent with reversal on marriage finding. |
| Due process and evidence-admission | Edward asserts improper exclusion of testimony and misapplication of Rule 8(d). | Lajune maintains trial court properly limited evidence due to pleading posture. | Remand to allow Edward to present his evidence; due-process concerns require fair trial on merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lofton v. Estate of Weaver, 611 So.2d 335 (Ala.1992) (definitive standard for reviewing common-law-marriage findings; credibility via ore tenus evidence)
- L.M. v. D.D.F., 840 So.2d 171 (Ala.Civ.App.2002) (clear and convincing standard defined)
- Stringer v. Stringer, 689 So.2d 194 (Ala.Civ.App.1997) (elements of common-law marriage; capacity, mutual agreement, public recognition)
- Gray v. Bush, 835 So.2d 192 (Ala.Civ.App.2001) (recognition of common-law marriage relies on multiple factors; not mere cohabitation)
- Hall v. Duster, 727 So.2d 834 (Ala.Civ.App.1999) (public recognition and day-to-day mutual conduct as indicia of marriage)
- Beck v. Beck, 286 Ala. 692 (Ala.1959) (cohabitation alone is insufficient without public recognition as married)
- Reese v. Holston, 67 So.3d 109 (Ala.Civ.App.2011) (documentary evidence must show persuasive pattern of conduct)
- King v. King, 269 Ala. 468 (So.2d 145) (impediment to marriage; no ceremony after impediment does not establish common-law marriage)
- Barnett v. Barnett, 262 Ala. 655 (80 So.2d 626) (improves contextual understanding of impediments to marriage)
- Hawk v. Bavarian Motor Works, 342 So.2d 355 (Ala.1977) (regarding Rule 8(d) and pleading responses; allow fair testing of issues)
- Dinmark v. Farrier, 510 So.2d 819 (Ala.1987) (harmless error when evidence admission is challenged but sufficiency fails)
- Manci v. Ball, Koons & Watson, 995 So.2d 161 (Ala.2008) (responding to amended counterclaims does not automatically admit new grounds)