Randy Charles McMullen v. Mindy Louise Huffman, 01-23-00752-CV

This was an appeal from a final divorce decree, specifically concerning the existence of a common law (informal) marriage between Randy McMullen and Mindy Huffman, which would determine the division of community property.
McMullen and Huffman began cohabiting in Texas in mid-2014, with documented periods of living together punctuated by separations, and disagreements related to a neighbor led to intermittent living arrangements.
In August 2016, Huffman discovered she was pregnant, and both parties discussed common law marriage in Texas before moving to Florida later that month for McMullen's job.
While in Texas, both parties participated in joint acts (e.g., putting Huffman on McMullen’s health insurance as a spouse, executing affidavits of marriage, and filing joint tax returns as married) that indicated mutual acknowledgment of a marital relationship.
The trial court found, after a bench trial, that the parties agreed to be married in Texas on August 12, 2016, lived together as spouses thereafter, and held themselves out to others as a married couple, especially through documents and witness testimony.
On appeal, McMullen contested the sufficiency of evidence for each element of common law marriage (agreement, cohabitation, holding out) under Texas law, primarily arguing no marriage was formed in Texas.

Issue	McMullen's Argument	Huffman's Argument	Held
Was there an agreement to marry in Texas?	No present, immediate agreement in TX; any agreement was later in FL after proposal	Parties agreed to common law marriage in TX, specifically before moving; corroborated by testimony and documents	Sufficient evidence of agreement to marry in TX, including affidavit and tax filings
Did parties cohabit as spouses in Texas after agreement?	Any cohabitation was brief, inconsistent, or mere 'sleepovers'; Huffman maintained separate apartment	Lived together consistently at Olivia Lane address at relevant time; multiple witnesses and evidence supported cohabitation	Sufficient evidence of cohabitation in TX post-agreement
Did the parties hold themselves out as married in Texas?	No public or ongoing representation; some private contradictions	Represented to IRS, employers, title company, and family they were married; documentary evidence supports holding out	Sufficient evidence the parties held themselves out as married
Sufficiency of evidence to support trial court’s informal marriage finding	Evidence is legally and factually insufficient on all three required elements	Evidence shows all elements met by preponderance	Trial court did not abuse its discretion; judgment affirmed

Russell v. Russell, 865 S.W.2d 929 (Tex. 1993) (agreement to marry can be shown by direct or circumstantial evidence; factfinder decides witness credibility)
Eris v. Phares, 39 S.W.3d 708 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001) (outlining three elements of common law marriage)
Est. of Claveria v. Claveria, 615 S.W.2d 164 (Tex. 1981) (recorded deeds as evidence of informal marriage/holding out)
Ex parte Threet, 333 S.W.2d 361 (Tex. 1960) (requiring public cohabitation and holding out; no secret common law marriage)