In Re: Estate of Carter, S., Appeal of: Hunter, M.
159 A.3d 970
Pa. Super. Ct.2017Background
- Hunter and Carter, a same-sex couple, dated from 1996, began cohabiting in July 1996, exchanged rings with an apparent proposal on Dec. 25, 1996 and a reciprocal ring on Feb. 18, 1997, and annually celebrated Feb. 18 as their anniversary.
- They purchased homes together, had joint finances, mutual wills and powers of attorney, and were treated by family and friends as spouses.
- Carter died in April 2013; Hunter petitioned in May 2016 for a declaratory judgment that they entered a common-law marriage before Pennsylvania abolished common-law marriage effective Jan. 1, 2005.
- The petition was uncontested; Pennsylvania Dept. of Revenue and SSA declined to participate, but the trial court denied the petition on two grounds: (1) it was "legally impossible" for same-sex couples to form common-law marriages pre-2005 under then-existing marriage statutes; and (2) Hunter failed to prove present intent to marry.
- On appeal, the Superior Court examined (a) whether same-sex couples have the same capacity to form pre-2005 common-law marriages given subsequent federal rulings, and (b) whether Hunter met Pennsylvania's proof requirements for a common-law marriage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether same-sex couples could form valid pre-2005 common-law marriages | Hunter: federal constitutional rulings (Windsor/Obergefell) mean same-sex couples always had the constitutional capacity to marry, so invalid state statutory exclusions cannot bar retrospective recognition | Trial court: Pennsylvania Marriage Law then defined marriage as between a man and woman, so it was legally impossible for same-sex couples to form common-law marriages pre-2005 | Court: Rejected trial court; Windsor/Whitewood/Obergefell mean same-sex couples have the same capacity to marry and to prove pre-2005 common-law marriages; denying that right would violate Due Process/Equal Protection |
| Proper legal standard and burden to prove common-law marriage | Hunter: exchanged present-tense marriage words/rings on Feb. 18, 1997 and conduct (cohabitation, joint assets, holding out) corroborates present intent | Trial court: Hunter showed only intent to have a future ceremonial wedding once state law permitted, so no verba in praesenti | Court: Applied Staudenmayer standard; Hunter met the heavy burden by clear and convincing evidence — present intent shown by ring exchange, contemporaneous statements, long cohabitation, joint affairs and holding out |
| Applicability of rebuttable presumption of marriage (cohabitation + reputation) | Hunter: corroborative evidence supports verba in praesenti and can supplement direct testimony | Trial court: Relied on absence of present intent; did not apply presumption | Court: Presumption not required where direct testimony exists, but cohabitation/reputation served as corroboration; overall evidence met the standard |
| Whether relief should be granted despite lack of opposition or potential agency consequences | Hunter: uncontested petition and family support reduce concerns about fraud; agencies declined participation | Trial court: denied petition notwithstanding lack of opposition | Court: Granted relief — reversed and remanded for declaration that common-law marriage existed as of Feb. 18, 1997 |
Key Cases Cited
- Staudenmayer v. Staudenmayer, 714 A.2d 1016 (Pa. 1998) (explains verba in praesenti requirement and rebuttable presumption based on cohabitation and reputation)
- Windsor v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (U.S. 2013) (struck down DOMA's federal definition of marriage and affirmed constitutional harms of excluding same-sex couples)
- Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (U.S. 2015) (held state bans on same-sex marriage violate Due Process and Equal Protection; same rights to marry)
- Whitewood v. Wolf, 992 F. Supp. 2d 410 (M.D. Pa. 2014) (declared Pennsylvania statutory marriage exclusions unconstitutional and ordered recognition of same-sex marriages)
- DeSanto v. Barnsley, 476 A.2d 952 (Pa. Super. 1984) (earlier Superior Court precedent holding same-sex couples could not contract common-law marriage — criticized/ superseded by later federal and state rulings)
- In re Estate of Garges, 378 A.2d 307 (Pa. 1977) (discusses marriage as a civil contract and distinguishes ceremonial and common-law marriages)