Stone v. Thompson, 833 S.E.2d 266

Thompson and Stone began a long-term romantic and business relationship in the late 1980s, cohabited after 1989, had two children, and managed rental properties together for ~20 years.
Stone sued in family court (2012) seeking a declaratory judgment that they were common-law married, divorce, and equitable distribution; Thompson denied marriage and sought dismissal.
The family court bifurcated the proceedings and, after a week-long trial with 40+ witnesses and ~200 exhibits, found a common-law marriage beginning in 1989 and awarded Stone $125,620.32 in attorney’s fees.
The Court of Appeals held the bifurcated order was not appealable; the South Carolina Supreme Court accepted certiorari, ruled the order was appealable, and retained the case on the merits.
The Supreme Court reversed: it found the record did not prove mutual assent to marry, rejected the family court’s reliance on an alleged 1989 introduction as husband and wife, and vacated the attorney’s-fee award.
Separately, the Court announced a prospective abolition of common-law marriage in South Carolina: effective forward from the opinion date, parties cannot form a valid marriage in SC absent a marriage license; existing common-law marriages recognized before the opinion remain valid.

Issue	Stone's Argument	Thompson's Argument	Held
Whether the parties formed a common-law marriage	Parties held themselves out as married, executed documents listing them as married, raised family and property together → mutual assent	She never intended to marry; tax returns and many documents listed her as single; some witnesses testified she said she would never marry	No common-law marriage; Stone failed to prove mutual assent by the required standard
Standard of proof for common-law marriage claims going forward	(implicit) preponderance or presumption-based tests applied historically	(implicit) higher proof appropriate given modern context	Court adopts clear-and-convincing evidence standard for future non-probate common-law marriage claims
Role of cohabitation/social presumption	Cohabitation and apparent matrimonial life can trigger presumption of marriage	Social cohabitation is insufficient when parties expressly or consistently represent unmarried status	Court abolishes permissive presumption based on cohabitation; courts may no longer rely on cohabitation presumption
Attorney's fees award to Stone	Fees warranted because Thompson’s denials contradicted record	Fees improper because no enforceable marital status proven	Fee award reversed along with merits reversal

Jeanes v. Jeanes, 255 S.C. 161 (S.C. 1970) (describing common-law marriage tied to moral paternalism and presumption favoring marriage)
Russo v. Sutton, 310 S.C. 200 (S.C. 1992) (explaining court may change common law and considering retroactivity)
Callen v. Callen, 365 S.C. 618 (S.C. 2005) (mutual assent is key element for common-law marriage)
Barker v. Baker, 330 S.C. 361 (S.C. 1998) (discussing presumption from apparently matrimonial cohabitation)
Campbell v. Christian, 235 S.C. 102 (S.C. 1959) (rule that once common-law marriage is complete it cannot be undone by subsequent disavowal)
In re Estate of Duffy, 392 S.C. 41 (S.C. Ct. App. 2011) (definition of clear-and-convincing evidence standard)
Chisholm v. Chisholm, 396 S.C. 507 (S.C. 2011) (standards for appellate review of attorney's-fee awards)
PNC Bank Corp. v. W.C.A.B. (Stamos), 831 A.2d 1269 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2003) (analysis supporting abolition of common-law marriage and prospective application)
Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (U.S. 2015) (recognizing marriage as a fundamental right)