290 A.3d 524
D.C.2023Background
- Rosetta Jenkins died intestate in 2007 owning a house titled only in her name; Edward Jenkins lived with her for 35 years.
- Edward had a prior ceremonial marriage to Rosa Lee Carr in 1969 and married Rosetta in a 1972 ceremony; no divorce from Rosa Lee occurred until 1997.
- Edward and Rosetta cohabited as spouses before and after the 1997 divorce; they purchased a house together in 1996 (deed in Rosetta’s name).
- Probate Court found the 1972 ceremony void ab initio due to Edward’s prior marriage and held no common-law marriage existed because there was no express agreement after the 1997 divorce and because Rosetta allegedly did not know of the prior marriage.
- The Probate Court removed Edward as personal representative and ruled he was not an heir; Edward appealed.
- The D.C. Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a pre-impediment express agreement plus continued cohabitation after the impediment’s removal establishes a common-law marriage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Tracey) | Defendant's Argument (Jenkins) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Edward is Rosetta's heir via common-law marriage | 1972 ceremony void; no present‑tense mutual agreement after 1997; Rosetta unaware of prior marriage, so no common‑law union | 1972 mutual agreement + continuous cohabitation before and after 1997 suffices; no need to re‑agree after divorce | Reversed: common‑law marriage existed; Edward is an heir |
| Whether the "express mutual agreement" must occur after removal of an impediment to marriage | Agreement must be made after impediment is removed | Agreement may predate removal if parties cohabit as spouses and continue after removal | Rejected Probate Court: agreement need not be post‑impediment; Thomas/Matthews rule controls |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. Murphy, 107 F.2d 268 (D.C. Cir. 1939) (holding removal of impediment while parties continue to live as spouses gives rise to common‑law marriage)
- Matthews v. Britton, 303 F.2d 408 (D.C. Cir. 1962) (applies Thomas and explains parties need not reaffirm agreement after impediment removed)
- Taylor v. Taylor, 233 A.2d 43 (D.C. 1967) (recognizes principle that pre‑impediment agreement plus continued cohabitation creates common‑law marriage)
- Gill v. Nostrand, 206 A.3d 869 (D.C. 2019) (articulates elements of common‑law marriage: present‑tense express agreement and cohabitation)
- U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Britton, 269 F.2d 249 (D.C. Cir. 1959) (distinguishable discussion requiring evidence of mutual agreement to marry)
- Coates v. Watts, 622 A.2d 25 (D.C. 1993) (discusses need for evidence of present‑tense agreement; did not overrule Thomas)