Serrano v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
2014 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 318
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2014Background
- Decedent died from a work injury in January 2011; employer paid dependency benefits for two minor children and Claimant (Amanda Serrano) filed a fatal-claim petition seeking widow’s death benefits under 77 P.S. § 561(3).
- Claimant says she and Decedent entered a common-law marriage in Wyoming in 2003, lived there as a family (two children born 2004 and 2008), and moved to Pennsylvania in June 2009.
- Wyoming did not recognize common-law marriage; Claimant testified to an exchange of words and other indicia (joint account application, vehicle titles, health insurance listed as dependent) to prove marriage.
- Pennsylvania abolished recognition of common-law marriage effective January 1, 2005 (Act 144, 23 Pa.C.S. § 1103) but preserved “any common-law marriage otherwise lawful and contracted on or before January 1, 2005.”
- WCJ and the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board found Claimant failed to prove an "otherwise lawful" common-law marriage because the purported marriage was contracted in Wyoming (which did not recognize such marriages) and the couple did not cohabit in Pennsylvania until 2009; this Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Claimant proved a valid common-law marriage for widow benefits | Claimant: Costello means §1103’s “otherwise lawful” looks to the parties’ capacity/conduct, not the law of the place where marriage occurred — her 2003 relationship met PA common-law elements | Employer: Validity is governed by lex loci contractus — marriage validity determined by law of place where contracted; Wyoming did not recognize CL marriage | Held: Marriage invalid as contracted in Wyoming (which didn’t recognize CL marriage); §1103’s “otherwise lawful” does not reach out‑of‑state CL unions that were invalid where formed |
| Whether Costello requires only timing (pre‑2005) and not location | Claimant: Costello renders all otherwise lawful pre‑2005 unions valid if parties met PA common‑law elements | Employer: Costello didn’t address unions formed in states that never recognized CL marriage; §1103 must be read with choice‑of‑law rules | Held: Court distinguishes Costello — it did not address out‑of‑state invalid CL marriages; location matters |
| Whether Sullivan/Travers support recognition of out‑of‑state attempts at marriage | Claimant: Sullivan shows PA can recognize marriages based on later residency and reputation even if initial acts occurred elsewhere | Employer: Sullivan involved couples who later resided in states recognizing CL marriage; facts differ here (never resided in a CL‑recognizing jurisdiction) | Held: Sullivan distinguishable — those couples later lived in jurisdictions that recognized CL marriage; not applicable here |
| Whether Claimant is entitled to widow death benefits despite dependency benefits for children | Claimant: Having been husband/wife in fact, she should get widow’s share under §307(3) | Employer: No valid marriage → no widow status; children retain dependency benefits | Held: Denial of widow benefits affirmed; children’s dependency benefits unaffected |
Key Cases Cited
- PNC Bank Corp. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Stamos), 831 A.2d 1269 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (en banc) (abolished common‑law marriage prospectively as court rule)
- Costello v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Kinsley Construction, Inc.), 916 A.2d 1242 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (held Act 144 validated “otherwise lawful” common‑law marriages entered into before Jan. 1, 2005)
- Staudenmayer v. Staudenmayer, 714 A.2d 1016 (Pa. 1998) (describes verba in praesenti test and burden of clear and convincing evidence for common‑law marriage)
- Sullivan v. American Bridge Co., 176 A. 24 (Pa. Super. 1935) (Superior Court recognized common‑law marriage where parties later lived in jurisdictions that recognized such unions)
- Travers v. Reinhardt, 205 U.S. 423 (1907) (U.S. Supreme Court recognized that long, open cohabitation as husband and wife in a state that recognizes common‑law marriage can establish marital status)