Rotundo v. Jones
36 Pa. D. & C.5th 355
| Pennsylvania Court of Common P... | 2014Background
- Rotundo filed for divorce alleging a Pennsylvania common-law marriage; Jones counterclaimed for declaratory relief that no marriage existed. Procedural posture: court dismissed the divorce for lack of marriage and Rotundo appealed.
- Rotundo asserted parties entered a common-law marriage by an exchange of words in praesenti on May 12, 1996; she alternatively alleged March 19, 2003 in her verified divorce complaint (ring presentation).
- The court heard testimony from both parties and witnesses; the court found both parties’ testimony of questionable credibility and noted inconsistencies in Rotundo’s statements and filings.
- Documentary evidence contradicted Rotundo’s claim: deed showing joint tenants with right of survivorship (not tenancy by the entireties), refinance paperwork listing Jones as “single,” and federal tax returns filed as single/head of household.
- Rotundo had been listed as Jones’s “spouse” on insurance forms earlier for pragmatic reasons; both parties had made inconsistent representations in different contexts.
- The court held Rotundo failed to prove a common-law marriage by clear and convincing evidence and dismissed the divorce for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a common-law marriage was formed by verba in praesenti | Rotundo: Jones said “you are my wife” (May 12, 1996) and she responded, establishing present intent | Jones: Denied making present-tense marriage words or intending marriage | Court: Rotundo failed to prove present-tense exchange by clear and convincing evidence; no marriage found |
| Whether alternative date (Mar 19, 2003 ring ceremony) establishes marriage | Rotundo: Ring presentation reinforced marital status and was alleged in complaint as fallback | Jones: Denied that ceremony created marriage; pointed to inconsistencies | Court: Inconsistent pleadings and testimony undermined Rotundo; ring did not establish common-law marriage |
| Effect of documentary and conduct evidence on marital status | Rotundo: Acts (joint ownership, insurance listing) show holding out as spouses | Jones: Documents (deed form, tax filing, refinance listing) reflect non-married status or pragmatic misrepresentations | Court: Documentary evidence weighed against Rotundo; inconsistent representations suggested convenience, not legal marriage |
| Burden and standard of proof for common-law marriage when both parties testify | Rotundo: Claims present-tense words; bears burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence | Jones: Denies; challenges credibility and evidentiary support | Court: Confirms clear-and-convincing standard and that claimant must meet it; Rotundo did not meet it |
Key Cases Cited
- Staudenmayer v. Staudenmayer, 714 A.2d 1016 (Pa. 1998) (sets clear-and-convincing standard and requirements for common-law marriage — verba in praesenti review with great scrutiny)
- Commonwealth v. Gorby, 588 A.2d 902 (Pa. 1991) (explains necessity of present-tense words to form common-law marriage)
- Estate of Manfredi, 159 A.2d 697 (Pa. 1960) (common-law marriage requires present agreement, not future promises)
- Estate of Gavula, 417 A.2d 168 (Pa. 1980) (no specific form of words required; present agreement suffices)
- PNC Bank Corporation v. W.C.A.B., 831 A.2d 1269 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (abolition of common-law marriage reduces litigation and prevents inconsistent representations)