2021 CO 3
Colo.2021Background
- In 2003 Pyfer and LaFleur held a ceremony (vows, rings, reverend, witnesses) and later cohabitated; in 2018 Pyfer sued for dissolution claiming a common-law marriage dating to that ceremony.
- LaFleur argued a pre-2014/2015 common-law same-sex marriage was legally impossible because Colorado law then barred same-sex marriage.
- The district court found the parties entered a common-law marriage on November 30, 2003, based on proposal, ceremony, holding out, cohabitation, and financial support.
- The district court issued property division and spousal maintenance orders; Pyfer appealed those awards and LaFleur cross-appealed the marriage finding.
- The Colorado Supreme Court held unconstitutional state bans on same-sex marriage operate as void ab initio (and that Obergefell applies retroactively), affirmed that a pre-Obergefell common-law same-sex marriage may be recognized and that the parties were common-law married, but reversed and remanded the property division and maintenance awards for further findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (LaFleur) | Defendant's Argument (Pyfer) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a same-sex couple may establish a common-law marriage in Colorado predating state recognition of same-sex marriage | Pre-Obergefell state law made such intent and legal capacity impossible | Obergefell invalidates exclusion and couples could have formed common-law marriages pre-Obergefell | Court: Yes; unconstitutional marriage bans are void ab initio and do not bar pre-Obergefell common-law marriages |
| Whether Obergefell’s invalidation of state bans operates retroactively | Obergefell should not be applied retroactively to create legal marriages before it was decided | Obergefell applies retroactively to cases still open on direct review and to events predating the decision | Court: Obergefell must be given full retroactive effect under Harper and related retroactivity precedents |
| The proper test for proving common-law marriage and whether the parties met it | (Argued lack of mutual intent to enter a legal marital relationship) | Parties manifested mutual agreement and conduct sufficient under updated Lucero/Hogsett framework | Court: Apply refined Lucero test (as articulated in Hogsett); record supports finding of mutual intent and common-law marriage as of 2003 |
| Whether the district court’s property division and spousal maintenance findings were adequate | Not directly argued by LaFleur on appeal | Pyfer argued the court failed to classify, trace, value, and apply statutory factors under sections 14-10-113 and -114 | Court: Remanded — district court abused discretion by failing to make required statutory findings; property division and maintenance vacated for reconsideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (same-sex marriage bans violate Due Process and Equal Protection; states must allow and recognize same-sex marriage)
- Harper v. Virginia Dep't of Tax'n, 509 U.S. 86 (rule of federal law applied by Court must be given full retroactive effect in cases still open on direct review)
- Norton v. Shelby Cnty., 118 U.S. 425 (an unconstitutional act is void ab initio)
- People v. Lucero, 747 P.2d 660 (Colo. 1987) (traditional Colorado framework for proving common-law marriage)
- Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional; marriage is a fundamental right)
- James B. Beam Distilling Co. v. Georgia, 501 U.S. 529 (retroactivity principles and declaratory theory of judicial decisions)
- Reynoldsville Casket Co. v. Hyde, 514 U.S. 749 (limits to retroactivity when other independent legal bars exist)
- In re Estate of Carter, 159 A.3d 970 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017) (court may not rely on now-invalidated marriage statutes to deny recognition of pre-decision same-sex common-law marriage)
- Ranolls v. Dewling, 223 F. Supp. 3d 613 (E.D. Tex. 2016) (Obergefell held retroactive to permit recognition of pre-decision common-law same-sex marriage)
- Kitchen v. Herbert, 755 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2014) (same-sex marriage bans violate Due Process and Equal Protection; influenced state-level recognition in Tenth Circuit jurisdictions)