In re the Marriage of Edi L. HOGSETT v. Marcia E. NEALE
478 P.3d 713
| Colo. | 2021|
Check Treatment<div data-spec-version="0.0.3dev" data-generated-on="2024-06-09"> <div class="generated-from-iceberg vlex-toc"> <link href="https://doc-stylesheets.vlex.com/ldml-xml.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"></link> <div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-decision"><div href="/vid/895630156" data-vids="895630156" class="ldml-header header ldml-header content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Header"><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-cite"><b class="ldml-bold">478 P.3d 713
</b></span></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-party">In re the Marriage of <span class="ldml-name">Edi L. HOGSETT</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Petitioner</span></span>,</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold">v.</b><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">Marcia E. NEALE</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Respondent</span></span>.</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold">Supreme Court <span class="ldml-cite">Case No. 19SC44</span> </b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-court">Supreme Court of Colorado</span>.</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-date"><b class="ldml-bold">January 11, 2021</b></span></p></div><div class="ldml-counsel header ldml-header content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Counsel"><p data-paragraph-id="163" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-2"><span data-paragraph-id="163" data-sentence-id="163" class="ldml-sentence">Attorneys for <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-role">Petitioner</span></span>: <span class="ldml-lawfirm">Griffiths Law PC</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Ann Gushurst</span></span>, Littleton, Colorado, <span class="ldml-entity">Radman Law Firm, LLC</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Diane R. Radman</span></span>, Denver, Colorado, <span class="ldml-entity">Aitken Law, LLC</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Sharlene J. Aitken</span></span>, Denver, Colorado</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="352" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-2"><span data-paragraph-id="352" data-sentence-id="352" class="ldml-sentence">Attorneys for <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-role">Respondent</span></span>: <span class="ldml-lawfirm">Plog & Stein, P.C.</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Jessica A. Saldin</span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Stephen J. Plog</span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">Greenwood Village</span>, Colorado</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="461" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-2"><span data-paragraph-id="461" data-sentence-id="461" class="ldml-sentence">Attorneys for <span class="ldml-lawyerrole">Amicus Curiae</span> Family Law <span class="ldml-entity">Section</span> of the <span class="ldml-entity">Colorado Bar Association</span>: <span class="ldml-entity">Polidori, Franklin, Monahan & Beattie, LLC</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Robin Lutz Beattie</span></span>, Lakewood, Colorado, <span class="ldml-lawfirm">Sherr Puttmann Akins Lamb PC</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Courtney Radtke McConomy</span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">Greenwood Village</span>, Colorado, <span class="ldml-lawfirm">Epstein Patierno, LLP</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Christina Patierno</span></span>, Denver, Colorado</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="769" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-2"><span data-paragraph-id="769" data-sentence-id="769" class="ldml-sentence">Attorneys for <span class="ldml-lawyerrole">Amici Curiae</span> the <span class="ldml-entity">Colorado LGBT Bar Association</span>; the <span class="ldml-entity">Colorado Women's Bar Association</span>; <span class="ldml-lawfirm">Lambda Legal</span> Defense and Education Fund, Inc.; and the <span class="ldml-lawfirm">National Center for Lesbian Rights</span>: <span class="ldml-lawfirm">Hogan Lovells US LLP</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Mark D. Gibson</span></span>, Denver, Colorado</span></p></div><h2 class="ldml-opinionheading"><span data-paragraph-id="1014" class="ldml-paragraph "><span class="ldml-judgepanel"><span data-paragraph-id="1014" data-sentence-id="1014" class="ldml-sentence">En Banc</span></span></span></h2><div class="ldml-opinion"><p data-paragraph-id="1021" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-4"><span class="ldml-opinionauthor content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Opinion (MÁRQUEZ, HART, BOATRIGHT, SAMOUR)"><span data-paragraph-id="1021" data-sentence-id="1021" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">MÁRQUEZ</span></span> <span class="ldml-opiniontype">delivered <span class="ldml-entity">the Opinion of <span class="ldml-entity">the Court</span></span></span></span>.</span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="1072" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="1072" data-sentence-id="1072" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_1072"><span class="ldml-cite">¶1</span></a></span> In <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span> and two others announced today, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895054554" data-vids="895054554" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_1072"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">In re Estate of Yudkin</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">2021 CO 2
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">478 P.3d 732
</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">and</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:inremarriageoflafleurpyfer,2021co3,479p3d869boatright,cj,concurringinpartandconcurringinthejudgment" data-prop-ids="sentence_1072"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">In re Marriage of LaFleur & Pyfer</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">2021 CO 3
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">479 P.3d 869
</span></a></span></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> revisit the test for proving a common law marriage that <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> articulated over three decades ago in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_1072"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">People v. Lucero</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">747 P.2d 660
</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1987</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1072" data-sentence-id="1381" class="ldml-sentence">In <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_1381"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lucero</i></span></a></span> , <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> held that a couple could establish a common law marriage <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"by the mutual consent or agreement of <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> to be husband and wife, followed by a mutual and open assumption of a marital relationship."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="1072" data-sentence-id="1597" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_1381"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 663</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1072" data-sentence-id="1609" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> directed that evidence of such agreement and conduct could be found in a couple's cohabitation; reputation in the community as husband and wife; maintenance of joint banking and credit accounts; purchase and joint ownership of property; filing of joint tax returns; and use of the man's surname by the woman or by children born to <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1072" data-sentence-id="1956" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_1609"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 665</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="1967" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="1967" data-sentence-id="1967" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_1967"><span class="ldml-cite">¶2</span></a></span> Each of the three <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span> before <span class="ldml-entity">us</span> involves a disputed common law marriage claim.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1967" data-sentence-id="2051" class="ldml-sentence">Together, <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> illustrate how much has changed since our <span class="ldml-entity">decision in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2051"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lucero</i></span></a></span></span> .</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1967" data-sentence-id="2129" class="ldml-sentence">Notably for purposes of <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span> and <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:inremarriageoflafleurpyfer,2021co3,479p3d869boatright,cj,concurringinpartandconcurringinthejudgment" data-prop-ids="sentence_2129"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">LaFleur</i></span></a></span> , same-sex couples may now lawfully marry, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">see</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894234531" data-vids="894234531" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2129"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Obergefell v. Hodges</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">576 U.S. 644
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">135 S.Ct. 2584
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">192 L.Ed.2d 609
</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2015</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-relatingauthority">holding</span> that states cannot deprive same-sex <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-id="pagenumber_2343" data-val="715" data-rep="P.3d" data-vol="478" data-page_type="bracketed_cite"></span> couples of the fundamental right to marry</span>)</span></span>, though their right to do so was not recognized in Colorado until <span class="ldml-entity">October 2014</span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">see</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">LaFleur</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">¶ 30</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">describing the timeline of same-sex marriage recognition in Colorado</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1967" data-sentence-id="2558" class="ldml-sentence">Yet the gender-differentiated terms and heteronormative assumptions of <span class="ldml-entity">the <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2558"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lucero</i></span></a></span> test</span> render it ill-suited for same-sex couples.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1967" data-sentence-id="2688" class="ldml-sentence">More broadly, many of the traditional indicia of marriage identified in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2688"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lucero</i></span></a></span> are no longer exclusive to marital relationships.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1967" data-sentence-id="2817" class="ldml-sentence">At the same time, genuine marital relationships no longer necessarily bear <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2817"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lucero</i></span></a></span> 's traditional markers.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1967" data-sentence-id="2923" class="ldml-sentence">The lower <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity">court</span> decisions in <span class="ldml-entity">these cases</span></span> reflect the challenges of applying <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2923"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lucero</i></span></a></span> to these changed circumstances.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="3037" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="3037" data-sentence-id="3038" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_3038"><span class="ldml-cite">¶3</span></a></span> In <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> refine the test from <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_3038"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lucero</i></span></a></span> and hold that a common law marriage may be established by the mutual consent or agreement of the couple to enter the legal and social institution of marriage, followed by conduct manifesting that mutual agreement.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="3037" data-sentence-id="3300" class="ldml-sentence">The core query is whether <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> intended to enter a <i class="ldml-italics">marital</i> relationship—that is, to share a life together as spouses in a committed, intimate relationship of mutual support and obligation.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="3037" data-sentence-id="3496" class="ldml-sentence">In assessing whether a common law marriage has been established, <span class="ldml-entity">courts</span> should accord weight to evidence reflecting a couple's express agreement to marry.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="3037" data-sentence-id="3651" class="ldml-sentence">In the absence of such evidence, <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>' agreement to enter a marital relationship may be inferred from their conduct.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="3037" data-sentence-id="3775" class="ldml-sentence">When examining <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>' conduct, the factors identified in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_3775"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lucero</i></span></a></span> can still be relevant to the inquiry, but <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> must be assessed in context; the inferences to be drawn from <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>' conduct may vary depending on the circumstances.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="3037" data-sentence-id="4015" class="ldml-sentence">Finally, the manifestation of <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>' agreement to marry need not take a particular form.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="4109" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="4109" data-sentence-id="4109" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4109"><span class="ldml-cite">¶4</span></a></span> Having refined <span class="ldml-entity">the <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4109"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lucero</i></span></a></span> test</span> in <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> clarify in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895054554" data-vids="895054554" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4109"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Yudkin</i></span></a></span> that whether a common law marriage exists depends on the totality of the circumstances, and no single factor is dispositive.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4109" data-sentence-id="4303" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4109"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Yudkin</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">¶ 3</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4109" data-sentence-id="4317" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> remand <span class="ldml-entity">that case</span> to the probate <span class="ldml-entity">court</span> for reconsideration of the common law marriage claim under the updated framework <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> announce today.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4109" data-sentence-id="4458" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4317"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶ 24</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4109" data-sentence-id="4471" class="ldml-sentence">In <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:inremarriageoflafleurpyfer,2021co3,479p3d869boatright,cj,concurringinpartandconcurringinthejudgment" data-prop-ids="sentence_4471"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">LaFleur</i></span></a></span> , <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> hold that <span class="ldml-entity">a court</span> may recognize a common law same-sex marriage entered in Colorado before <span class="ldml-entity">the state</span> recognized same-sex couples' right to marry.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4109" data-sentence-id="4632" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4471"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">LaFleur</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">¶¶ 3–5</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4109" data-sentence-id="4650" class="ldml-sentence">There, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> apply the refined <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4650"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lucero</i></span></a></span> test</span> and conclude that <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> did enter a common law marriage, but <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> set aside the property division and spousal maintenance award and remand for further proceedings.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4109" data-sentence-id="4858" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4650"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶ 6</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="4869" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="4869" data-sentence-id="4869" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4869"><span class="ldml-cite">¶5</span></a></span> In <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> apply the refined <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4869"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lucero</i></span></a></span> test</span> and conclude that the record supports <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span>'s conclusion</span> that no common law marriage existed.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4869" data-sentence-id="5026" class="ldml-sentence">Accordingly, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> affirm the judgment of <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span>.</span></p><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-confidences="very_high" data-content-heading-label="I. Facts and Procedural History" data-parsed="true" data-types="background" data-ordinal_end="1" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-ordinal_start="1" data-id="heading_5086" id="heading_5086" data-specifier="I" data-value="I. Facts and Procedural History"><span data-paragraph-id="5086" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="5086" data-sentence-id="5086" class="ldml-sentence">I.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5086" data-sentence-id="5089" class="ldml-sentence">Facts and Procedural History</span></b></span></section><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth2" data-ordinal_start="1" data-parsed="true" data-format="upper_case_letters" data-ordinal_end="1" data-content-heading-label="A. Initial Petition and Separation Agreement" data-id="heading_5117" id="heading_5117" data-specifier="A" data-value="A. Initial Petition and Separation Agreement"><span data-paragraph-id="5117" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="5117" data-sentence-id="5117" class="ldml-sentence">A.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5117" data-sentence-id="5120" class="ldml-sentence">Initial Petition and Separation Agreement</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="5161" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="5161" data-sentence-id="5161" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5161"><span class="ldml-cite">¶6</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">Edi L. Hogsett</span> and <span class="ldml-entity">Marcia E. Neale</span> were in a thirteen-year relationship from <span class="ldml-entity">November 2001</span> to <span class="ldml-entity">November 2014</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5161" data-sentence-id="5273" class="ldml-sentence">The two women never formally married <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(and could not have done so in Colorado until <span class="ldml-entity">October 2014</span>)</span>.<a href="#note-fr1" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr1">1</a></span> <span data-paragraph-id="5161" data-sentence-id="5371" class="ldml-sentence">Nevertheless, in <span class="ldml-entity">January 2015</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> jointly filed a <span class="ldml-entity">pro se petition for dissolution of marriage</span> in <span class="ldml-entity">Arapahoe County District Court</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5161" data-sentence-id="5502" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The parties</span> mediated a separation agreement stating that <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> had entered a common law marriage on <span class="ldml-entity">December 1, 2002</span>, and that their marriage was irretrievably broken.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="5668" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="5668" data-sentence-id="5668" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5668"><span class="ldml-cite">¶7</span></a></span> The separation agreement included a division of <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>' purported marital property, including their home, furniture and household goods, bank accounts, stock purchase plans, retirement plans, vehicles, pets, and other miscellaneous assets, and provided for the division of their debts and obligations.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5668" data-sentence-id="5978" class="ldml-sentence">It also required Neale to pay Hogsett $1,000 in monthly <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"spousal maintenance"</span> for about seven years.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="6078" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="6078" data-sentence-id="6078" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6078"><span class="ldml-cite">¶8</span></a></span> At the initial status conference, <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> explained that it would have to find that a marriage existed before it could address the <span class="ldml-entity">petition for dissolution</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6078" data-sentence-id="6240" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The parties</span> reported that <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> did not have a marriage <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-id="pagenumber_6295" data-val="716" data-rep="P.3d" data-vol="478" data-page_type="bracketed_cite"></span> or civil union license and stipulated to dismissal of the petition, explaining that, through mediation, <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> had <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"fully settled all issues <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> had wanted to address in a dissolution case,"</span> and that <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"would be able to implement their <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[agreement]</span> between themselves <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[without]</span> <span class="ldml-entity">court</span> involvement."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="6078" data-sentence-id="6595" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The case</span> was dismissed.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="6618" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="6618" data-sentence-id="6618" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6618"><span class="ldml-cite">¶9</span></a></span> Hogsett later sought certain retirement assets and maintenance <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> believed Neale owed her under their separation agreement.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6618" data-sentence-id="6746" class="ldml-sentence">Neale communicated to Hogsett her position that no marriage existed between them.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6618" data-sentence-id="6828" class="ldml-sentence">Hogsett then filed a <span class="ldml-entity">second petition for dissolution of marriage</span> that is the subject of <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6618" data-sentence-id="6927" class="ldml-sentence">Neale moved to dismiss, asserting, as relevant here, that <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> were never married under common law.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth2" data-ordinal_start="2" data-parsed="true" data-format="upper_case_letters" data-ordinal_end="2" data-content-heading-label="B. District Court's Ruling" data-id="heading_7033" id="heading_7033" data-specifier="B" data-value="B. District Court's Ruling"><span data-paragraph-id="7033" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="7033" data-sentence-id="7033" class="ldml-sentence">B.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7033" data-sentence-id="7036" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity">District Court</span>'s Ruling</span></span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="7059" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="7059" data-sentence-id="7059" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7059"><span class="ldml-cite">¶10</span></a></span> At a hearing on Neale's <span class="ldml-entity">motion to dismiss</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> heard testimony from Neale, Hogsett, and several of their friends, relatives, and associates.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7059" data-sentence-id="7219" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The court</span> also considered documentary and photographic evidence of <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>' relationship.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7059" data-sentence-id="7313" class="ldml-sentence">It ultimately concluded that Hogsett had not met her burden to prove a common law marriage under the test in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7313"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lucero</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">747 P.2d at 663–65</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="7450" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="7450" data-sentence-id="7450" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7450"><span class="ldml-cite">¶11</span></a></span> In its detailed oral ruling, <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> first acknowledged what <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> confirm today in <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:inremarriageoflafleurpyfer,2021co3,479p3d869boatright,cj,concurringinpartandconcurringinthejudgment" data-prop-ids="sentence_7450"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">LaFleur</i></span></a></span> : that it could recognize a common law same-sex marriage entered in Colorado before <span class="ldml-entity">the state</span> recognized same-sex couples' fundamental right to marry.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7450" data-sentence-id="7705" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7450"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">LaFleur</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">¶ 3</span></a></span></span>.<a href="#note-fr2" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr2">2</a></span> <span data-paragraph-id="7450" data-sentence-id="7724" class="ldml-sentence">But <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> also acknowledged the difficulty of applying <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7724"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lucero</i></span></a></span> to <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>' same-sex relationship:</span></p><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_7828" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="7828" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">[T]</span>he elements set forth in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7828"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lucero</i></span></a></span> for the <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[c]</span>ourt to consider, in many ways, do not reflect the reality of the situation for same-sex couples prior to <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894234531" data-vids="894234531" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7828"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Obergefell</i></span></a></span> ]</span>.</span> <span data-sentence-id="7996" class="ldml-sentence">Gay marriage was illegal so no matter if a couple intended to be married, <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> couldn't take advantage of the many privileges that were afforded to heterosexual couples.</span> <span data-sentence-id="8166" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">They</span> couldn't use the word spouse on taxes; on financial documentation; <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> couldn't mark the other partner as spouse or wife on medical forms.</span></blockquote><p data-paragraph-id="8310" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="8310" data-sentence-id="8310" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The court</span> remarked that additional guidance from higher <span class="ldml-entity">courts</span> in <span class="ldml-entity">these circumstances</span> would be <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"very helpful,"</span> but in the absence of such guidance, <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> proceeded to apply <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8310"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lucero</i></span></a></span> .</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="8495" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="8495" data-sentence-id="8495" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8495"><span class="ldml-cite">¶12</span></a></span> In doing so, <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> observed that certain <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8495"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lucero</i></span></a></span> factors</span> were of limited or no use in the context of a same-sex relationship, while others were less relevant today than when <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8495"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lucero</i></span></a></span> was decided.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="8495" data-sentence-id="8696" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The court</span> acknowledged, for example, that <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> bought a custom home together, but it accorded that factor less weight given that cohabitation between unmarried partners is far more prevalent today.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="8495" data-sentence-id="8901" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The court</span> also observed that in a same-sex marriage, there would be no use of a husband's surname by a wife, but it reasoned that this factor was not particularly relevant in any event, given that many spouses today elect not to change their names.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="8495" data-sentence-id="9150" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The court</span> further noted that it did not believe <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> had any option to file joint tax returns before same-sex couples could legally marry.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="9295" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="9295" data-sentence-id="9295" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9295"><span class="ldml-cite">¶13</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">The court</span> then turned to conflicting evidence related to a marriage ceremony and exchange of rings.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9295" data-sentence-id="9399" class="ldml-sentence">Hogsett testified that <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> and Neale exchanged custom wedding rings in a <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"very intimate close marriage ceremony"</span> at a bar.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9295" data-sentence-id="9522" class="ldml-sentence">In contrast, Neale testified that <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> believed <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> were merely exchanging commitment rings, and that there were no family members or friends present.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9295" data-sentence-id="9673" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The court</span> concluded there was <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"evidence of <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[an]</span> agreement of a committed relationship"</span> but reasoned that <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> might have had different understandings of the significance of the ceremony and exchange of rings.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9295" data-sentence-id="9889" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The court</span> noted that neither <span class="ldml-entity">party</span> referred to the other as wife or mentioned marriage in the letters and cards <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> exchanged.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9295" data-sentence-id="10017" class="ldml-sentence">The question, <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> reasoned, was whether <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> did not use the words <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"married"</span> or <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"wife"</span> because of <span class="ldml-entity">the state</span> of the law at the time, or because <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> had no intention of being married.<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-id="pagenumber_10212" data-val="717" data-rep="P.3d" data-vol="478" data-page_type="bracketed_cite"></span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="10212" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="10212" data-sentence-id="10213" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10213"><span class="ldml-cite">¶14</span></a></span> Turning to other evidence, <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> observed that <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> had joint ownership of property, had joint banking and credit card accounts, and had worked with a financial advisor as a couple to manage and preserve their assets.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10212" data-sentence-id="10446" class="ldml-sentence">It also found that Hogsett had listed Neale as a primary beneficiary and domestic partner on her <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">401<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(k)</span></span></a></span> and as next of kin and life partner on a medical record.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10212" data-sentence-id="10607" class="ldml-sentence">But Hogsett had also certified on a health insurance form that <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> was <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"not married."</span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="10692" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="10692" data-sentence-id="10692" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10692"><span class="ldml-cite">¶15</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">The court</span> disagreed with Hogsett's argument that <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>' initial <span class="ldml-entity">joint petition for dissolution of marriage</span> served as conclusive evidence that <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> were married.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10692" data-sentence-id="10870" class="ldml-sentence">It credited Neale's testimony that <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> had acted on bad advice that <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> had to file for divorce in order to separate <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>' significantly intertwined finances.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10692" data-sentence-id="11036" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The court</span> also noted that the date of marriage specified on the petition did not match the date <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> had consistently celebrated as their anniversary and found it significant that <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> jointly dismissed <span class="ldml-entity">the case</span> shortly after filing it.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10692" data-sentence-id="11287" class="ldml-sentence">Ultimately, <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> concluded that the original <span class="ldml-entity">petition for dissolution</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"cut<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ ]</span> both ways."</span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="11381" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="11381" data-sentence-id="11381" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11381"><span class="ldml-cite">¶16</span></a></span> Turning to reputation in the community, <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> found that only Hogsett had described the relationship as a marriage or had ever referred to Neale as her wife.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11381" data-sentence-id="11547" class="ldml-sentence">However, <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> again wondered whether this could have been attributable to marriage being unrecognized for same-sex couples at the time.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="11687" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="11687" data-sentence-id="11687" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11687"><span class="ldml-cite">¶17</span></a></span> In the end, <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> found <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"credible evidence ... that <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[Hogsett]</span> believed that <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> was married to <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[Neale]</span>."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="11687" data-sentence-id="11800" class="ldml-sentence">But it also found <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"credible evidence that <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[Neale]</span> did not believe that <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> was married"</span> to Hogsett.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11687" data-sentence-id="11900" class="ldml-sentence">It noted that Neale testified that <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"do<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[esn't]</span> believe in marriage"</span> because <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"do<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[esn't]</span> believe two <span class="ldml-entity">people</span> can promise each other that <span class="ldml-entity">they</span>'re going to love each other for the rest of their lives."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="11687" data-sentence-id="12104" class="ldml-sentence">Moreover, Neale <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"never referred to <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[Hogsett]</span> as her wife; never told anyone <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> was married; <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[and]</span> never listed married or intent to be married on any legal, financial, or medical documents."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="11687" data-sentence-id="12296" class="ldml-sentence">Accordingly, although it acknowledged <span class="ldml-entity">the case</span> was <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"extremely difficult,"</span> <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> held that Hogsett had not met her burden to establish a common law marriage by a preponderance of the evidence and granted Neale's <span class="ldml-entity">motion to dismiss</span>.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth2" data-ordinal_start="3" data-parsed="true" data-format="upper_case_letters" data-ordinal_end="3" data-content-heading-label="C. Court of Appeals' Ruling" data-id="heading_12529" id="heading_12529" data-specifier="C" data-value="C. Court of Appeals' Ruling"><span data-paragraph-id="12529" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="12529" data-sentence-id="12529" class="ldml-sentence">C.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12529" data-sentence-id="12532" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity">Court of Appeals</span>' Ruling</span></span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="12556" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="12556" data-sentence-id="12556" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12556"><span class="ldml-cite">¶18</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">The court of appeals</span> affirmed, concluding that <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> did not err in applying <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12556"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lucero</i></span></a></span> to find that no common law marriage existed.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12556" data-sentence-id="12702" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:inremarriageofhogsettneale,2018coa176" data-prop-ids="sentence_12702"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">In re Marriage of Hogsett & Neale</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">2018 COA 176
</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12702"><span class="ldml-cite">¶¶ 3</span></a></span></span>, 11, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:inrethemarriageofhogsettvnealeno17ca1484480p3d696december13,2018" data-prop-ids="sentence_12702"><span class="ldml-cite">480 P.3d 696
</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="12775" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="12775" data-sentence-id="12775" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12775"><span class="ldml-cite">¶19</span></a></span> The division noted that record evidence supported both Hogsett's belief that <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> was married and Neale's belief that <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> was not.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12775" data-sentence-id="12909" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12775"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶ 20</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12775" data-sentence-id="12922" class="ldml-sentence">It acknowledged Hogsett's argument that many indicia of marriage were present, including <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>' intertwined finances, the existence of joint accounts, and their joint ownership of a home.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12775" data-sentence-id="13116" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12922"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶ 21</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12775" data-sentence-id="13129" class="ldml-sentence">But it also pointed out that other evidence showed there was no common law marriage, including <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>' joint dismissal of the initial <span class="ldml-entity">petition for dissolution</span>, Neale's testimony that <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> didn't believe in marriage, and the absence of references to marriage in <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>' private correspondence.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12775" data-sentence-id="13431" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13129"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶¶ 19, 21</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12775" data-sentence-id="13449" class="ldml-sentence">It also noted that <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> did not attempt to marry in a state where same-sex marriage had been legalized.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12775" data-sentence-id="13560" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13449"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶ 21</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12775" data-sentence-id="13573" class="ldml-sentence">Ultimately, the division affirmed the lower <span class="ldml-entity">court</span>'s judgment, reasoning that <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> had discretion in weighing this evidence and that its findings were supported by the record.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12775" data-sentence-id="13762" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13573"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶¶ 15, 21</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="13779" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="13779" data-sentence-id="13779" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13779"><span class="ldml-cite">¶20</span></a></span> In reaching this conclusion, the division reasoned that <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894234531" data-vids="894234531" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13779"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Obergefell</i></span></a></span> applies retroactively in determining the existence of a common law marriage.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="13779" data-sentence-id="13927" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13779"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶¶ 22–25</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="13779" data-sentence-id="13944" class="ldml-sentence">It also acknowledged that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the only reason that many of <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13944"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lucero</i></span></a></span> 's indicia of marriage were unavailable to <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> is because of unconstitutional laws forbidding same-sex marriage."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="13779" data-sentence-id="14129" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13944"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶ 22</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="13779" data-sentence-id="14142" class="ldml-sentence">But it concluded that <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> had <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"appropriately recognized and accorded less weight to <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[the <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14142"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lucero</i></span></a></span> ]</span> factors that were less relevant"</span> in the context of <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>' same-sex relationship, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14142"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶ 20</span></a></span>, and that competent record evidence supported the crucial finding that Neale did not consent to a marriage, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14142"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶ 25</span></a></span>.<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-id="pagenumber_14474" data-val="718" data-rep="P.3d" data-vol="478" data-page_type="bracketed_cite"></span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="14474" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="14474" data-sentence-id="14475" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14475"><span class="ldml-cite">¶21</span></a></span> In a special concurrence, Judge Furman wrote separately <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"to encourage our <span class="ldml-entity">legislature</span> to abolish common law marriage, in conformity with the majority of jurisdictions."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="14474" data-sentence-id="14648" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:inremarriageofhogsettneale,2018coa176" data-prop-ids="sentence_14475"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">In re Marriage of Hogsett & Neale</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">2018 COA 176
</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14475"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 35</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:inrethemarriageofhogsettvnealeno17ca1484480p3d696december13,2018"><span class="ldml-cite">480 P.3d 696
</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(Furman, J., specially concurring)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="14474" data-sentence-id="14753" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">He</span> argued that common law marriage determinations place a needlessly heavy burden on <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> and our <span class="ldml-entity">courts</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="14474" data-sentence-id="14866" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:inrethemarriageofhogsettvnealeno17ca1484480p3d696december13,2018" data-prop-ids="sentence_14753"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="14474" data-sentence-id="14870" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">He</span> also reasoned that, because Colorado citizens have physical and legal access to licensed marriage and because children born to unmarried parents are now afforded the same rights and privileges as those born to married parents, common law marriage is no longer practically or legally necessary.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="14474" data-sentence-id="15167" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:inrethemarriageofhogsettvnealeno17ca1484480p3d696december13,2018" data-prop-ids="sentence_14870"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶ 36</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="15179" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="15179" data-sentence-id="15179" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15179"><span class="ldml-cite">¶22</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> granted Hogsett's <span class="ldml-entity">petition for a writ</span> of certiorari to address how <span class="ldml-entity">courts</span> should determine the existence of a common law marriage between same-sex partners.<a href="#note-fr3" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr3">3</a></span> <span data-paragraph-id="15179" data-sentence-id="15343" class="ldml-sentence">In considering that question and those posed by the two <span class="ldml-entity">other cases</span> before <span class="ldml-entity">us</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> necessarily revisit our common law marriage jurisprudence more broadly.</span></p></div></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-confidences="very_high" data-content-heading-label="II. Analysis" data-parsed="true" data-types="analysis" data-ordinal_end="2" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-ordinal_start="2" data-id="heading_15496" id="heading_15496" data-specifier="II" data-value="II. Analysis"><span data-paragraph-id="15496" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="15496" data-sentence-id="15496" class="ldml-sentence">II.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15496" data-sentence-id="15500" class="ldml-sentence">Analysis</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="15508" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="15508" data-sentence-id="15508" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15508"><span class="ldml-cite">¶23</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> begin by observing that marriage carries not only a great array of legal rights, benefits, and obligations, but also bears personal, social, expressive, and religious meanings.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15508" data-sentence-id="15692" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> next explain the two legal paths to marriage in Colorado, distinguishing common law marriage from licensed marriage.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15508" data-sentence-id="15812" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> acknowledge that Colorado is one of the few remaining states to recognize common law marriage and that there is some skepticism of its current utility.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15508" data-sentence-id="15967" class="ldml-sentence">After reviewing the test for proving a common law marriage set forth in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15967"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lucero</i></span></a></span> , <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> examine how social and legal changes since that decision have eroded its usefulness in distinguishing marital from nonmarital unions.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15508" data-sentence-id="16185" class="ldml-sentence">Finally, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> refine <span class="ldml-entity">the <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_16185"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lucero</i></span></a></span> test</span> to account for these changed circumstances and, applying the new framework here, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> conclude that there was no common law marriage in <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span>.</span></p><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth2" data-confidences="very_high" data-content-heading-label="A. Background" data-parsed="true" data-types="background" data-ordinal_end="1" data-format="upper_case_letters" data-ordinal_start="1" data-id="heading_16364" id="heading_16364" data-specifier="A" data-value="A. Background"><span data-paragraph-id="16364" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="16364" data-sentence-id="16364" class="ldml-sentence">A.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="16364" data-sentence-id="16367" class="ldml-sentence">Background</span></b></span></section><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth3" data-ordinal_start="1" data-parsed="true" data-format="number" data-ordinal_end="1" data-content-heading-label="1. The Significance of Marriage" data-id="heading_16377" id="heading_16377" data-specifier="1" data-value="1. The Significance of Marriage"><span data-paragraph-id="16377" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="16377" data-sentence-id="16377" class="ldml-sentence">1.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="16377" data-sentence-id="16380" class="ldml-sentence">The Significance of Marriage</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="16408" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="16408" data-sentence-id="16408" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_16408"><span class="ldml-cite">¶24</span></a></span> Marriage touches both life and death.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="16408" data-sentence-id="16450" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Courts</span> have catalogued the numerous significant protections, benefits, and obligations that flow from civil marriage.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="16408" data-sentence-id="16568" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See, e.g.</i></span> , <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894644271" data-vids="894644271" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_16669,sentence_16450"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">United States v. Windsor</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">570 U.S. 744
, 771–74</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">133 S.Ct. 2675
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">186 L.Ed.2d 808
</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2013</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">discussing some of the more than 1,000 federal laws and regulations referencing marriage</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888558268" data-vids="888558268" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_16842,sentence_16450"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Goodridge v. Dep't of Pub. Health</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">440 Mass. 309
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">798 N.E.2d 941
, 955–57</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2003</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">discussing benefits and obligations that turn on marital status under Massachusetts law</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="16408" data-sentence-id="16932" class="ldml-sentence">Indeed, the legal ramifications of a couple's marital status are abundant; <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> arise under federal, state, and local law and span the civil and criminal realm.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="16408" data-sentence-id="17093" class="ldml-sentence">A couple's marital status has implications in civil, domestic, and probate <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span>, and even plays a role in some criminal offenses.<a href="#note-fr4" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr4">4</a></span> </p><p data-paragraph-id="17224" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="17224" data-sentence-id="17224" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_17224"><span class="ldml-cite">¶25</span></a></span> Of course, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"marriage is more than a routine classification for purposes of certain statutory benefits."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="17224" data-sentence-id="17332" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894644271" data-vids="894644271" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_17224"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Windsor</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">570 U.S. at
769</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">133 S.Ct. 2675
</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="17224" data-sentence-id="17375" class="ldml-sentence">The right to marry has been recognized as fundamental, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887647027" data-vids="887647027" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_17375"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Loving v. Virginia</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">388 U.S. 1
, 12</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">87 S.Ct. 1817
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">18 L.Ed.2d 1010
</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1967</span>)</span></a></span>, and marriage has been the wellspring <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-id="pagenumber_17543" data-val="719" data-rep="P.3d" data-vol="478" data-page_type="bracketed_cite"></span> of other constitutionally protected rights, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">see, e.g.</i></span> , <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/891417196" data-vids="891417196" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_17375"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">316 U.S. 535
, 541</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">62 S.Ct. 1110
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">86 L.Ed. 1655
</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1942</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(procreation)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889885131" data-vids="889885131" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_17375"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Griswold v. Connecticut</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">381 U.S. 479
, 485</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">85 S.Ct. 1678
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">14 L.Ed.2d 510
</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1965</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(contraception)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="17224" data-sentence-id="17810" class="ldml-sentence">As <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"a far-reaching legal acknowledgment of the intimate relationship between two <span class="ldml-entity">people</span>,"</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894644271" data-vids="894644271" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_17810"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Windsor</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">570 U.S. at
769</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">133 S.Ct. 2675
</span></a></span>, marriage <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"bestows enormous private and social advantages on those who choose to marry,"</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888558268" data-vids="888558268" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_17810"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Goodridge</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">798 N.E.2d at 954</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="17224" data-sentence-id="18062" class="ldml-sentence">Marriage represents <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"a deeply personal commitment to another human being ... and the decision whether and whom to marry is among life's momentous acts of self-definition."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="17224" data-sentence-id="18234" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888558268" data-vids="888558268" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18062"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 954–55</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="17224" data-sentence-id="18249" class="ldml-sentence">Indeed, for many couples, marriage is a sacred religious bond.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="17224" data-sentence-id="18312" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894234531" data-vids="894234531" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_18361,sentence_18249"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Obergefell</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">576 U.S. at 656–57</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">135 S.Ct. 2584
</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"Marriage is sacred to those who live by their religions and offers unique fulfilment to those who find meaning in the secular realm."</span></span>)</span></span></span><span data-paragraph-id="17224" data-sentence-id="18496" class="ldml-sentence">.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="18497" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="18497" data-sentence-id="18497" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18497"><span class="ldml-cite">¶26</span></a></span> Because marriage triggers a cascade of legal rights, benefits, and obligations, and is laden with great historical, social, religious, and personal meaning, the determination of a couple's marital status is of great consequence.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth3" data-ordinal_start="2" data-parsed="true" data-format="number" data-ordinal_end="2" data-content-heading-label="2. Licensed Marriage and Common Law Marriage" data-id="heading_18729" id="heading_18729" data-specifier="2" data-value="2. Licensed Marriage and Common Law Marriage"><span data-paragraph-id="18729" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="18729" data-sentence-id="18729" class="ldml-sentence">2.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="18729" data-sentence-id="18732" class="ldml-sentence">Licensed Marriage and Common Law Marriage</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="18773" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="18773" data-sentence-id="18774" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18774"><span class="ldml-cite">¶27</span></a></span> Courts</span> have long viewed marriage as a civil contract requiring <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>' mutual agreement.</span> <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span data-paragraph-id="18773" data-sentence-id="18872" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:meistervmoore,96us76,80,24led826,8271878" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_18928"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Meister v. Moore</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">96 U.S. 76
, 78</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">24 L.Ed. 826
</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1877</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"Marriage is everywhere regarded as a civil contract."</span></span>)</span></span><span data-paragraph-id="18773" data-sentence-id="18983" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890413534" data-vids="890413534" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_19047"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Taylor v. Taylor</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">10 Colo.App. 303
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">50 P. 1049
, 1049</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1897</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"By <span class="ldml-entity">the statutes</span> of Colorado, marriage is declared to be a civil contract; and there is only one essential requirement to its validity, between <span class="ldml-entity">parties</span> capable of contracting, viz. the consent of <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>."</span></span>)</span></span></span><span data-paragraph-id="18773" data-sentence-id="19257" class="ldml-sentence">.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="19258" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="19258" data-sentence-id="19259" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19259"><span class="ldml-cite">¶28</span></a></span> In Colorado, a legally recognized marriage can be achieved two ways: formally, by fulfilling the statutory requirements of licensed marriage, or informally, by entering a common law marriage through mutual agreement of <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> followed by assumption of a marital relationship.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="19258" data-sentence-id="19544" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887706814" data-vids="887706814" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_19607,sentence_19259"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">In re Peters' Est.</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">73 Colo. 271
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">215 P. 128
, 129</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1923</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"The <span class="ldml-entity">statutes</span> provide a method of contracting marriage.</span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">That method is not exclusive."</span></span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">see also</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_19732,sentence_19259"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lucero</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">747 P.2d at 665</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">setting forth essential requirements of a common law marriage</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="19258" data-sentence-id="19796" class="ldml-sentence">Couples seeking a licensed marriage must pay a marriage license fee, obtain approval of the license, and return the marriage certificate and license within sixty-three days of solemnization. <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19796"><span class="ldml-cite">§§ 14-2-105</span></a></span> to - 109, C.R.S. <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity">2020</span>)</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="19258" data-sentence-id="20024" class="ldml-sentence">Common law marriage, by contrast, lacks these formalities solemnizing the relationship.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="20111" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="20111" data-sentence-id="20111" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_20111"><span class="ldml-cite">¶29</span></a></span> Historically, recognition of common law marriage allowed children of such unions to be treated as legitimate and prevented abandoned or widowed women from turning to the public fisc for their support.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="20111" data-sentence-id="20316" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_20111"><span class="ldml-refname">Ariela R. Dubler, <i class="ldml-italics">Wifely Behavior: A Legal History of Acting Married</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">100 Colum. L. Rev. 957
, 969–71</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2000</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="20111" data-sentence-id="20426" class="ldml-sentence">The doctrine protected vulnerable spouses, typically women, who invested in and relied on long-term relationships that were never formalized and whose <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"contributions of labor and commitment ... were not embodied in money, property, or title."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="20111" data-sentence-id="20669" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_20426"><span class="ldml-refname">Cynthia Grant Bowman, <i class="ldml-italics">A Feminist Proposal to Bring Back Common Law Marriage</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">75 Or. L. Rev. 709
, 711</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1996</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">see also</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_20815,sentence_20426"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lucero</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">747 P.2d at 664</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-relatingauthority">observing</span> that common law marriage <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"serves mainly as a means of protecting the interests of <span class="ldml-entity">parties</span> who have acted in good faith as husband and wife"</span></span>)</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="20966" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="20966" data-sentence-id="20966" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_20966"><span class="ldml-cite">¶30</span></a></span> Common law marriage also provides a path to marriage for marginalized groups such as undocumented immigrants who, as noted by amicus curiae Colorado Legal Services in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895054554" data-vids="895054554" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_20966"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Yudkin</i></span></a></span> , may wish to avoid divulging information to government authorities implicating their immigration status.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="20966" data-sentence-id="21250" class="ldml-sentence">And as pointed out by amici the <span class="ldml-entity">Colorado LGBT Bar Association</span>, et al. in <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:inremarriageoflafleurpyfer,2021co3,479p3d869boatright,cj,concurringinpartandconcurringinthejudgment" data-prop-ids="sentence_21250"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">LaFleur</i></span></a></span> , common law marriage may be particularly important for same-sex partners who lived as married couples for years but could not marry formally.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="21473" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="21473" data-sentence-id="21473" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_21473"><span class="ldml-cite">¶31</span></a></span> Conversely, as <span class="ldml-entity">Judge <span class="ldml-entity">Furman</span></span> described in his special concurrence below, many believe the doctrine has outlived its usefulness given the general accessibility of licensed marriage, the trend toward more egalitarian marriages, and the law's equal treatment of children born to unmarried parents.</span> <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-id="pagenumber_21771" data-val="720" data-rep="P.3d" data-vol="478" data-page_type="bracketed_cite"></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="21771" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="21771" data-sentence-id="21772" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Hogsett</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">¶¶ 35–36</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(Furman, J., specially concurring)</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">see also</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890254422" data-vids="890254422" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_21902"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Stone v. Thompson</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">428 S.C. 79
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">833 S.E.2d 266
, 267</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2019</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">concluding that the foundations of common law marriage <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"have eroded with the passage of time"</span></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="21771" data-sentence-id="21998" class="ldml-sentence">Certainly, as the record here reflects, the inquiry is fact-intensive and invasive and forces judges to assess the degree to which a couple's conduct conforms to a marital ideal.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="21771" data-sentence-id="22177" class="ldml-sentence">Indeed, the common law marriage doctrine holds relationships to standards that some licensed marriages might not meet if similarly scrutinized.<a href="#note-fr5" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr5">5</a></span> </p><p data-paragraph-id="22321" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="22321" data-sentence-id="22321" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_22321"><span class="ldml-cite">¶32</span></a></span> Although abolition of common law marriage is not before <span class="ldml-entity">us</span> today, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> note that a majority of states have abolished the doctrine.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="22321" data-sentence-id="22454" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See, e.g.</i></span> , <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/944684204" data-vids="944684204" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_22497,sentence_22321"><span class="ldml-cite">Ala. Code § 30-1-20
<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1975</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">prohibiting <span class="ldml-entity">parties</span> from entering into a common law marriage on or after <span class="ldml-entity">January 1, 2017</span></span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_22613,sentence_22321"><span class="ldml-cite">23 Pa. Cons. St. § 1103</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">declaring that common law marriages contracted after <span class="ldml-entity">January 1, 2005</span> are invalid</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890254422" data-vids="890254422" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_22723,sentence_22321"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Stone</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">833 S.E.2d at 267</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">prospectively abolishing common law marriage in South Carolina through judicial decision</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="22321" data-sentence-id="22814" class="ldml-sentence">Indeed, Colorado and only nine other jurisdictions continue to allow for the formation of common law marriages.<a href="#note-fr6" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr6">6</a></span> </p></div></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth2" data-ordinal_start="2" data-parsed="true" data-format="upper_case_letters" data-ordinal_end="2" data-content-heading-label="B. People v. Lucero" data-id="heading_22926" id="heading_22926" data-specifier="B" data-value="B. People v. Lucero"><span data-paragraph-id="22926" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="22926" data-sentence-id="22926" class="ldml-sentence">B.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="22926" data-sentence-id="22929" class="ldml-sentence"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity">People</span> v. Lucero</i></span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="22945" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="22945" data-sentence-id="22945" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_22945"><span class="ldml-cite">¶33</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> set forth the prevailing test for establishing a common law marriage in Colorado more than three decades ago in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_22945"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">People v. Lucero</i></span></a></span> , a criminal case in which <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span> objected to the admission of testimony from his alleged common law wife on grounds that it violated the marital privilege codified at <span class="ldml-entity">section</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">13-90-107<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span>, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1973</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="22945" data-sentence-id="23296" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_22945"><span class="ldml-cite">747 P.2d at 661–62</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="22945" data-sentence-id="23316" class="ldml-sentence">Although <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span> made an offer of proof consisting of his putative wife's testimony that <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> considered herself married to him and that the couple held themselves out as married, <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> overruled the objection, deeming the proffered testimony insufficient to prove the common law marriage.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="22945" data-sentence-id="23621" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_23316"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 662</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="23632" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="23632" data-sentence-id="23632" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_23632"><span class="ldml-cite">¶34</span></a></span> On review, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> held that a common law marriage is established by <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the mutual consent or agreement of <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> to be husband and wife, followed by a mutual and open assumption of a marital relationship."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="23632" data-sentence-id="23841" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_23632"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 663</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23632" data-sentence-id="23853" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> observed that the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"very nature of a common law marital relationship makes it likely that in many <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span> express agreements will not exist,"</span> and thus held that when <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the agreement is denied or cannot be shown, its existence may be inferred from evidence of cohabitation and general repute."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="23632" data-sentence-id="24145" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_23853"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 664</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="24156" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="24156" data-sentence-id="24156" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_24156"><span class="ldml-cite">¶35</span></a></span> Our opinion emphasized that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[a]</span> determination of whether a common law marriage exists turns on issues of fact and credibility, which are properly within <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span>'s discretion."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="24156" data-sentence-id="24345" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_24156"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 665</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="24156" data-sentence-id="24357" class="ldml-sentence">For guidance, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> identified certain conduct reflecting a couple's agreement, pointing foremost to cohabitation and the couple's general reputation in the community as husband and wife.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="24156" data-sentence-id="24542" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_24357"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 664</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="24156" data-sentence-id="24554" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> explained that <span class="ldml-entity">courts</span> may also consider other behavior, including <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"maintenance of joint banking and credit accounts; purchase and joint ownership of property; the use of the man's surname by the woman; the use of the man's surname by children born to <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>; and the filing of joint tax returns."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="24156" data-sentence-id="24859" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_24554"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 665</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="24156" data-sentence-id="24871" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> nevertheless made clear that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"any form of evidence that openly manifests the intention of <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> that their relationship is that of husband and wife will provide the requisite proof."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="24156" data-sentence-id="25063" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_24871"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="24156" data-sentence-id="25067" class="ldml-sentence">Because it was unclear by what criteria <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> evaluated the existence of the common law marriage, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> remanded <span class="ldml-entity">the case</span> for reconsideration under the clarified standard.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="24156" data-sentence-id="25246" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25067"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span></p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth2" data-ordinal_start="3" data-parsed="true" data-format="upper_case_letters" data-ordinal_end="3" data-content-heading-label="C. Challenges Presented by Lucero" data-id="heading_25249" id="heading_25249" data-specifier="C" data-value="C. Challenges Presented by Lucero"><span data-paragraph-id="25249" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="25249" data-sentence-id="25249" class="ldml-sentence">C.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="25249" data-sentence-id="25252" class="ldml-sentence">Challenges Presented by <i class="ldml-italics">Lucero</i></span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="25282" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="25282" data-sentence-id="25282" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25282"><span class="ldml-cite">¶36</span></a></span> Although <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25282"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lucero</i></span></a></span> sought to provide a flexible framework for evaluating the existence <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-id="pagenumber_25370" data-val="721" data-rep="P.3d" data-vol="478" data-page_type="bracketed_cite"></span> of a common law marriage, the factors <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> identified in <span class="ldml-entity">1987</span> have become, over time, less reliable markers to distinguish marital from nonmarital relationships.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="25282" data-sentence-id="25531" class="ldml-sentence">Of particular relevance here, some of the evidence called for in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25531"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lucero</i></span></a></span> is of limited use in evaluating a same-sex relationship, particularly one predating Colorado's recognition of same-sex marriage.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="25282" data-sentence-id="25732" class="ldml-sentence">But more broadly, as the three <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span> before <span class="ldml-entity">us</span> today make clear, many of the traditional indicia of marriage identified in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25732"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lucero</i></span></a></span> are no longer exclusive to marital relationships, while at the same time, bona fide marriages today do not always bear <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25732"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lucero</i></span></a></span> 's traditional markers.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="25282" data-sentence-id="26012" class="ldml-sentence">In short, social and legal changes since <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_26012"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lucero</i></span></a></span> make its factors less helpful in sorting out who is <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"acting married,"</span> and who is not.</span></p><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth3" data-ordinal_start="1" data-parsed="true" data-format="number" data-ordinal_end="1" data-content-heading-label="1. Lucero Is Underinclusive of Common Law Same-Sex Marriages" data-id="heading_26145" id="heading_26145" data-specifier="1" data-value="1. Lucero Is Underinclusive of Common Law Same-Sex Marriages"><span data-paragraph-id="26145" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="26145" data-sentence-id="26145" class="ldml-sentence">1.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="26145" data-sentence-id="26148" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><i class="ldml-italics">Lucero</i> Is Underinclusive</span> of Common Law Same-Sex Marriages</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="26205" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="26205" data-sentence-id="26205" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_26205"><span class="ldml-cite">¶37</span></a></span> First, by its gendered language, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_26205"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lucero</i></span></a></span> precludes recognition of same-sex relationships.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="26205" data-sentence-id="26298" class="ldml-sentence">It requires a finding that <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> agreed to be <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"husband and wife"</span> and, for evidence of such agreement, looks to factors including <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>' reputation in the community as <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"husband and wife"</span> and the use of the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"man's surname by the woman"</span> or by children born to <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="26205" data-sentence-id="26580" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_26298"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 663–65</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="26205" data-sentence-id="26595" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_26595"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lucero</i></span></a></span> 's heteronormative view of marriage can no longer stand.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="26205" data-sentence-id="26659" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894234531" data-vids="894234531" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_26708,sentence_26595"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Obergefell</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">576 U.S. at 675–76</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">135 S.Ct. 2584
</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-relatingauthority">holding</span> invalid state laws <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"to the extent <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples"</span></span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_26595"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">LaFleur</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">¶ 5</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-relatingauthority">holding</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894234531" data-vids="894234531" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_26595"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Obergefell</i></span></a></span> applies retroactively)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="26205" data-sentence-id="26918" class="ldml-sentence">To their credit, the lower <span class="ldml-entity">courts in <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span></span> and in <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:inremarriageoflafleurpyfer,2021co3,479p3d869boatright,cj,concurringinpartandconcurringinthejudgment" data-prop-ids="sentence_26918"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">LaFleur</i></span></a></span> took pains to apply <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_26918"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lucero</i></span></a></span> to the same-sex relationships before them in gender-neutral terms.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="27073" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="27073" data-sentence-id="27073" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_27073"><span class="ldml-cite">¶38</span></a></span> But the mismatch between <span class="ldml-entity">the <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_27073"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lucero</i></span></a></span> test</span> and the claims of same-sex spouses is not limited to its gendered terms.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="27073" data-sentence-id="27191" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> agree with amici the <span class="ldml-entity">Colorado LGBT Bar Association</span>, et al. that several of <span class="ldml-entity">the <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_27191"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lucero</i></span></a></span> factors</span> raise a barrier to the recognition of bona fide common law same-sex marriages given the history of same-sex couples' inability to marry and the continuing risks faced by many individuals for being in a same-sex relationship openly.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="27073" data-sentence-id="27520" class="ldml-sentence">Moreover, our holding today in <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:inremarriageoflafleurpyfer,2021co3,479p3d869boatright,cj,concurringinpartandconcurringinthejudgment" data-prop-ids="sentence_27520"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">LaFleur</i></span></a></span> that same-sex partners may show that <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> entered a common law marriage before <span class="ldml-entity">the state</span> recognized their right to marry does not alter the reality that such a marriage may be difficult to prove under the factors identified in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_27520"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lucero</i></span></a></span> .</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="27794" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="27794" data-sentence-id="27794" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_27794"><span class="ldml-cite">¶39</span></a></span> For example, same-sex couples will be unable to show that <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> filed taxes as a married couple or listed their partners as <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"spouses"</span> on beneficiary designations or other formal documents before same-sex marriage was legally recognized.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="27794" data-sentence-id="28034" class="ldml-sentence">And although other <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_28034"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lucero</i></span></a></span> criteria are not impossible for same-sex couples to meet, <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> may be unrealistic, impracticable, or even dangerous.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="27794" data-sentence-id="28177" class="ldml-sentence">Most notably, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_28177"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lucero</i></span></a></span> 's <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"holding out"</span> requirement that couples publicly affirm their marital status fails to account for the precarious legal and social status LGBTQ <span class="ldml-entity">people</span> and their relationships have occupied for most of this nation's history.<a href="#note-fr7" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr7">7</a></span> <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-id="pagenumber_28423" data-val="722" data-rep="P.3d" data-vol="478" data-page_type="bracketed_cite"></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="28423" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="28423" data-sentence-id="28424" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_28424"><span class="ldml-cite">¶40</span></a></span> Given this reality, for some same-sex couples, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[a]</span> truthful declaration ... of what was in their hearts had to remain unspoken,"</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894234531" data-vids="894234531" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_28424"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Obergefell</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">576 U.S. at
660</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">135 S.Ct. 2584
</span></a></span>, or their marital intent was conveyed in non-traditional ways, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">see, e.g.</i></span> , <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894644271" data-vids="894644271" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_28424"><span class="ldml-refname">Br. for Resp't at 3, <i class="ldml-italics">United States v. Windsor</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">570 U.S. 744
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">133 S.Ct. 2675
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">186 L.Ed.2d 808
</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2013</span>)</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_28424"><span class="ldml-cite">No. 12-307</span></a></span>)</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-relatingauthority">noting</span> that Windsor had proposed to her late wife with a diamond brooch instead of a diamond ring to <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"avoid unwelcome questions about the identity of <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[her]</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">‘fiancé’</span> "</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="28423" data-sentence-id="28963" class="ldml-sentence">In short, <span class="ldml-entity">the <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_28963"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lucero</i></span></a></span> test</span> is ill-adapted to assess whether a same-sex couple has entered into a common law marriage.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth3" data-ordinal_start="2" data-parsed="true" data-format="number" data-ordinal_end="2" data-content-heading-label="2. The Lucero Factors No Longer Mark a Reliable Boundary Between Marital and Nonmarital Unions" data-id="heading_29079" id="heading_29079" data-specifier="2" data-value="2. The Lucero Factors No Longer Mark a Reliable Boundary Between Marital and Nonmarital Unions"><span data-paragraph-id="29079" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="29079" data-sentence-id="29079" class="ldml-sentence">2.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="29079" data-sentence-id="29082" class="ldml-sentence">The <i class="ldml-italics">Lucero</i> Factors No Longer Mark a Reliable Boundary Between Marital and Nonmarital Unions</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="29173" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="29173" data-sentence-id="29173" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_29173"><span class="ldml-cite">¶41</span></a></span> Second, and more broadly, public norms have evolved since <span class="ldml-entity">1987</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="29173" data-sentence-id="29241" class="ldml-sentence">As a result, the factors <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> offered in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_29241"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lucero</i></span></a></span> to distinguish between marital and nonmarital relationships have become less reliable markers of that boundary.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="29398" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="29398" data-sentence-id="29398" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_29398"><span class="ldml-cite">¶42</span></a></span> Today, many unmarried couples live together.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="29398" data-sentence-id="29447" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890254422" data-vids="890254422" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_29474,sentence_29398"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Stone</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">833 S.E.2d at 269</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[N]</span>on-marital cohabitation is exceedingly common and continues to increase among Americans of all age groups."</span></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="29398" data-sentence-id="29588" class="ldml-sentence">Indeed, <span class="ldml-entity">this court</span> recognized the growing frequency of nonmarital cohabitation two decades ago.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="29398" data-sentence-id="29684" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/891823844" data-vids="891823844" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_29740,sentence_29588"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Salzman v. Bachrach</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">996 P.2d 1263
, 1267</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2000</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-relatingauthority">noting</span> the number of unmarried-couple households had increased 571% from <span class="ldml-entity">1970</span> to <span class="ldml-entity">1993</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(citing Bureau of the Census, <i class="ldml-italics">Marital Status and Living Arrangements: <span class="ldml-entity">March 1993</span>,</i> VII–VIII, tbl.D <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity">May 1994</span>)</span>)</span></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="29398" data-sentence-id="29938" class="ldml-sentence">In response to that sea change in social norms, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> announced the enforceability of contracts between unmarried cohabitating couples, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/891823844" data-vids="891823844" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_29938"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">id.</i></span></a></span> , while at the same time cautioning that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"mere cohabitation does not trigger any <i class="ldml-italics">marital</i> rights,"</span> <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/891823844" data-vids="891823844" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_29938"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">id.</i> at 1269</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis added</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="29398" data-sentence-id="30203" class="ldml-sentence">In other words, since <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_30203"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lucero</i></span></a></span> , <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> have recognized that cohabitation is no longer synonymous with marriage.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="30309" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="30309" data-sentence-id="30310" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_30310"><span class="ldml-cite">¶43</span></a></span> The trend <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> observed two decades ago in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/891823844" data-vids="891823844" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_30310"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Salzman</i></span></a></span> has continued: The share of adults living with an unmarried partner has more than doubled since <span class="ldml-entity">1995</span>, and majorities across age groups now share the view that it is acceptable for a couple to live together even if <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> never plan to marry.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="30309" data-sentence-id="30603" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Juliana Menasce Horowitz</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">Nikki Graf</span>, & <span class="ldml-entity">Gretchen Livingston</span>, <i class="ldml-italics">Marriage and Cohabitation in the U.S.</i> , Pew Rsch. Ctr., <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity">Nov. 6, 2019</span>)</span>, https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/<span class="ldml-entity">2019</span>/11/06/marriage-and-cohabitation-in-the-u-s/#fn-26816-1 <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[https://perma.cc/RR6Z-25MK]</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="30309" data-sentence-id="30858" class="ldml-sentence">At the same time, it is becoming more common and technologically feasible for spouses to live apart.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="30309" data-sentence-id="30959" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Sue Shellenbarger</span>, <i class="ldml-italics">The Long-Distance Marriage That's Built to Last</i> , Wall St. J. <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity">Aug. 14, 2018</span>)</span>, https://www.wsj.com/<span class="ldml-entity">articles</span>/the-long-distancemarriage-thats-built-to-last-1534252845 <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[https://perma.cc/8F87-RZUB]</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(describing recent census data indicating the practice of married <span class="ldml-entity">people</span> living apart has risen 44% since <span class="ldml-entity">2000</span> to 3.96 million)</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="30309" data-sentence-id="31301" class="ldml-sentence">In sum, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> can no longer assume that cohabitation <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"clearly show<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[s]</span> an intention to be married,"</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_31301"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lucero</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">747 P.2d at 665</span></a></span>, or that living apart necessarily disproves the existence of a marriage.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="31494" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="31494" data-sentence-id="31495" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_31495"><span class="ldml-cite">¶44</span></a></span> Nor is marriage today necessarily a prerequisite to procreation.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="31494" data-sentence-id="31564" class="ldml-sentence">Childrearing outside marriage has become increasingly common.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="31494" data-sentence-id="31626" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Gretchen Livingston</span>, <i class="ldml-italics">The Changing Profile of Unmarried Parents</i> , Pew Rsch. Ctr., <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity">April 25, 2018</span>)</span>, https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/<span class="ldml-entity">2018</span>/04/25/the-changing-profile-of-unmarried-parents/ <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[https://perma.cc/NFH9-ALM9]</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"One-in-four parents living with a child in the United States today are unmarried."</span>)</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="31494" data-sentence-id="31927" class="ldml-sentence">And, as <span class="ldml-entity">Judge <span class="ldml-entity">Furman</span></span> observed, children born to unmarried parents are no longer denied the rights of children born to married parents.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="31494" data-sentence-id="32062" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_31927"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Hogsett</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">¶ 36</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(Furman, J., specially concurring)</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">see also, e.g.</i></span> , <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_32157,sentence_31927"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 19-4-103, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">providing that for purposes of the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_31927"><span class="ldml-cite">Uniform Parentage Act</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[t]</span>he parent and child relationship extends equally to every child and to every parent, regardless of the marital status of the parents"</span></span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_31927"><span class="ldml-cite">ch. 96, sec. 1</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">,</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_32403,sentence_31927"><span class="ldml-cite">2018 Colo. Sess. Laws 752
, 752</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-quotation quote">"eliminat<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ing]</span> and moderniz<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ing]</span> the outdated use of the terms <span class="ldml-quotation quote">‘illegitimate child’</span> or <span class="ldml-quotation quote">‘legitimate child’</span> or related terms"</span> in the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_31927"><span class="ldml-cite">Colorado Revised Statutes</span></a></span></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="31494" data-sentence-id="32562" class="ldml-sentence">For that matter, parentage today takes many forms; married or not, many parents have children through adoption, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_32562"><span class="ldml-cite">§§ 19-5-201</span></a></span> to - 203, C.R.S. <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity">2020</span>)</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(permitting individual, marital, stepparent, <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-id="pagenumber_32755" data-val="723" data-rep="P.3d" data-vol="478" data-page_type="bracketed_cite"></span> and second-parent adoption)</span>, or assisted reproductive technologies, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">see</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:rooksvrookscaseno16sc9062018co85october29,2018" data-prop-ids="sentence_32562"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">In re Marriage of Rooks</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">2018 CO 85
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">429 P.3d 579
</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="31494" data-sentence-id="32881" class="ldml-sentence">Finally, just as having shared biological or genetic children is not an indicator of marriage, it is also not a requirement of marriage.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="31494" data-sentence-id="33018" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894234531" data-vids="894234531" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_33069,sentence_32881"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Obergefell</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">576 U.S. at
646</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">135 S.Ct. 2584
</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate."</span></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="31494" data-sentence-id="33228" class="ldml-sentence">In short, whether a couple has or raises children together is not necessarily indicative of a marriage.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="33331" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="33331" data-sentence-id="33331" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_33331"><span class="ldml-cite">¶45</span></a></span> The same is true for couples' name-changing practices.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="33331" data-sentence-id="33390" class="ldml-sentence">The custom cited in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_33390"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lucero</i></span></a></span> of a woman adopting her husband's surname dates back to the doctrine of coverture, wherein <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the very being or legal existence of the woman <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[was]</span> suspended during the marriage."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="33331" data-sentence-id="33594" class="ldml-sentence">1 <span class="ldml-entity">William Blackstone</span>, Commentaries *430.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="33331" data-sentence-id="33635" class="ldml-sentence">Today, the choice to take a partner's surname, combine surnames, or share a newly created surname together remains common and meaningful among both different-sex and same-sex spouses.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="33331" data-sentence-id="33819" class="ldml-sentence"><i class="ldml-italics">See, e.g.</i> , <span class="ldml-entity">Vicki Valosik</span>, <i class="ldml-italics">For Same-Sex Couples, Changing Names Takes on Extra Significance</i> , The Atlantic <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity">Sept. 27, 2013</span>)</span>, https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/<span class="ldml-entity">2013</span>/09/for-same-sex-couples-changing-names-takes-on-extra-significance/279841/ <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[https://perma.cc/LBA3-LNVV]</span>; <span class="ldml-entity">Suzannah Weiss</span>, <i class="ldml-italics">Creating a Name for Themselves</i> , N.Y. Times <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity">March 11, 2020</span>)</span>, https://www.nytimes.com/<span class="ldml-entity">2020</span>/03/11/fashion/weddings/name-change-after-marriage-not-always-easy.html <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[https://perma.cc/F6HC-WT72]</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="33331" data-sentence-id="34307" class="ldml-sentence">But there may be any number of reasons, including cultural ones, that spouses and children do not take one partner's name at marriage.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="33331" data-sentence-id="34442" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_34563,sentence_34307"><span class="ldml-refname">Suzanne A. Kim, <i class="ldml-italics">Marital Naming/Naming Marriage: Language and Status in Family Law</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">85 Ind. L.J. 893
, 910–12</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2010</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">discussing studies demonstrating that major determinants of name change upon marriage include age at marriage, geographical region, gender role traditionalism, career orientation, and educational attainment</span>)</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="34771" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="34771" data-sentence-id="34771" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_34771"><span class="ldml-cite">¶46 A</span></a></span> couple's financial arrangements may also be less telling these days than before.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="34771" data-sentence-id="34858" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[C]</span>ouples make varying arrangements regarding their finances, such that the maintenance of <span class="ldml-quotation quote">‘largely separate finances’</span> is a far less salient consideration than it might have been in years past."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="34771" data-sentence-id="35054" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894391168" data-vids="894391168" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_35054"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Gill v. Nostrand</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">206 A.3d 869
, 882</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">D.C.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2019</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span></span> <i class="ldml-italics">see also</i> <span class="ldml-entity">Caroline Kitchener</span>, <i class="ldml-italics">Why More Young Married Couples Are Keeping Separate Bank Accounts</i> , The Atlantic <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity">Apr. 20, 2018</span>)</span>, https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/<span class="ldml-entity">2018</span>/04/young-couples-separate-bank-accounts/558473/ <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[https://perma.cc/4ZTG-8J6P]</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(discussing generational changes in spouses' choices to intermingle finances)</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="34771" data-sentence-id="35436" class="ldml-sentence">Moreover, as noted by amicus curiae Colorado Legal Services in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895054554" data-vids="895054554" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_35436"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Yudkin</i></span></a></span> , low-income individuals may not have bank accounts or own a home and therefore may be unable to prove a common law marriage through a joint deed or mortgage.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="34771" data-sentence-id="35665" class="ldml-sentence">Similarly, low-income couples may choose to title property in only one spouse's name because of credit issues.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="35775" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="35775" data-sentence-id="35775" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_35775"><span class="ldml-cite">¶47</span></a></span> Finally, the traditions and symbols that mark marital and nonmarital commitments are not uniform.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="35775" data-sentence-id="35877" class="ldml-sentence">Not every expression of commitment to a partner constitutes an agreement to enter a <i class="ldml-italics">marital</i> relationship.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="35775" data-sentence-id="35983" class="ldml-sentence">Nor does every marriage ceremony involve an officiated exchange of vows before family and friends at a place of worship.<a href="#note-fr8" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr8">8</a></span> </p><p data-paragraph-id="36104" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="36104" data-sentence-id="36104" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_36104"><span class="ldml-cite">¶48</span></a></span> In sum, the markers identified in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_36104"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lucero</i></span></a></span> have become less reliable indicators of a marital relationship.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="36104" data-sentence-id="36213" class="ldml-sentence">On the one hand, <span class="ldml-entity">the <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_36213"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lucero</i></span></a></span> factors</span> may be overinclusive of couples who lack intent to be married yet engage in conduct once associated only with spouses.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="36104" data-sentence-id="36368" class="ldml-sentence">On the other hand, the factors may be underinclusive of genuine marriages that don't conform to a traditional model.</span></p></div></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth2" data-ordinal_start="4" data-parsed="true" data-format="upper_case_letters" data-ordinal_end="4" data-content-heading-label="D. Proving a Common Law Marriage in Colorado" data-id="heading_36484" id="heading_36484" data-specifier="D" data-value="D. Proving a Common Law Marriage in Colorado"><span data-paragraph-id="36484" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="36484" data-sentence-id="36484" class="ldml-sentence">D.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="36484" data-sentence-id="36487" class="ldml-sentence">Proving a Common Law Marriage in Colorado</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="36528" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="36528" data-sentence-id="36528" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_36528"><span class="ldml-cite">¶49</span></a></span> Given these significant social and legal developments since our <span class="ldml-entity">decision in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_36528"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lucero</i></span></a></span></span> , the test and its factors require refinement.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="36528" data-sentence-id="36662" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> therefore hold that a common law marriage may be established by the mutual consent <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-id="pagenumber_36748" data-val="724" data-rep="P.3d" data-vol="478" data-page_type="bracketed_cite"></span> or agreement of the couple to enter the legal and social institution of marriage, followed by conduct manifesting that mutual agreement.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="36528" data-sentence-id="36886" class="ldml-sentence">The key question is whether <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> mutually intended to enter a <i class="ldml-italics">marital</i> relationship—that is, to share a life together as spouses in a committed, intimate relationship of mutual support and mutual obligation.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="36528" data-sentence-id="37100" class="ldml-sentence">In assessing whether a common law marriage has been established, <span class="ldml-entity">courts</span> should give weight to evidence reflecting a couple's express agreement to marry.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="36528" data-sentence-id="37253" class="ldml-sentence">In the absence of such evidence, <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>' agreement to enter a marital relationship may be inferred from their conduct.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="36528" data-sentence-id="37377" class="ldml-sentence">When examining <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>' conduct, the factors identified in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_37377"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lucero</i></span></a></span> can still be relevant to the inquiry, but <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> must be assessed in context; the inferences to be drawn from <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>' conduct may vary depending on the circumstances.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="36528" data-sentence-id="37617" class="ldml-sentence">Finally, the manifestation of <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>' agreement to marry need not take a particular form.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="37711" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="37711" data-sentence-id="37711" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_37711"><span class="ldml-cite">¶50</span></a></span> Our refinement retains the core parts of <span class="ldml-entity">the <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_37711"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lucero</i></span></a></span> test</span>: the centrality of the couple's mutual consent or agreement to marry, the requirement of some manifestation of that consent, and a flexible inquiry into the totality of the circumstances that relies on the factfinder's credibility determinations and weighing of the evidence.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="37711" data-sentence-id="38048" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> emphasize that, as was true under <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_38048"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lucero</i></span></a></span> , a mutual agreement to marry does not alone suffice; there must be some evidence of subsequent conduct manifesting that agreement.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="37711" data-sentence-id="38224" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_38048"><span class="ldml-cite">747 P.2d at 663</span></a></span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="38244" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="38244" data-sentence-id="38244" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_38244"><span class="ldml-cite">¶51</span></a></span> But in light of <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity">the Supreme Court</span>'s decision in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894234531" data-vids="894234531" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_38244"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Obergefell</i></span></a></span></span> , <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> discard <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_38244"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lucero's</i></span></a></span> gendered language.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="38244" data-sentence-id="38348" class="ldml-sentence">In addition, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> conclude that the conduct manifesting <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>' agreement to marry need not take the form of <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"mutual public acknowledgment,"</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_38348"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">id.</i></span></a></span> , or <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"open marital cohabitation"</span> in every case, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_38348"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">id.</i> at 664</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(quoting <span class="ldml-entity">Homer Clark</span>, <i class="ldml-italics">Law of Domestic Relations</i> 48 <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity">1968</span>)</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="38244" data-sentence-id="38615" class="ldml-sentence">There may be <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span> where, particularly for same-sex partners, a couple's choice not to broadly publicize the nature of their relationship may be explained by reasons other than their lack of mutual agreement to be married.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="38244" data-sentence-id="38838" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> are satisfied that in such <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span>, a general requirement to introduce <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"some objective evidence of the relationship"</span> will sufficiently guard against fraudulent assertions of marriage.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="38244" data-sentence-id="39023" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_38838"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_38838"><span class="ldml-refname">Clark</span>, <span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">supra</i> , at 48</span></a></span>)</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="39058" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="39058" data-sentence-id="39058" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_39058"><span class="ldml-cite">¶52</span></a></span> Finally, the refined test reflects that it is more difficult today to say that <span class="ldml-entity">a court</span> will know a marriage when it sees one.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="39058" data-sentence-id="39188" class="ldml-sentence">Indeed, Colorado recognizes in civil unions a legal relationship wholly separate from marriage notwithstanding that civil unions entail virtually the same <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"benefits, protections, and responsibilities afforded by Colorado law to spouses."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="39058" data-sentence-id="39426" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_39188"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 14-15-102, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="39453" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="39453" data-sentence-id="39453" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_39453"><span class="ldml-cite">¶53</span></a></span> Given this reality, the refined test emphasizes the importance of <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>' <i class="ldml-italics">mutual</i> agreement to enter a <i class="ldml-italics">marital</i> relationship.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="39453" data-sentence-id="39586" class="ldml-sentence">Whatever deep transformations marriage has undergone, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">see</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894234531" data-vids="894234531" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_39586"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Obergefell</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">576 U.S. at
660</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">135 S.Ct. 2584
</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> have consistently recognized it as a civil contract requiring the mutual assent of <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="39789" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="39789" data-sentence-id="39790" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_39790"><span class="ldml-cite">¶54</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">Parties</span> asserting a common law marriage need not prove that <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> had detailed knowledge of and intent to obtain all the legal consequences that attach to marriage.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="39789" data-sentence-id="39958" class="ldml-sentence">As <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> hold today in <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">LaFleur</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">¶¶ 32, 37</span></a></span>, a same-sex couple in particular need not show intent to enter a marriage <span class="ldml-entity">the state</span> would have recognized at the time as lawful.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="39789" data-sentence-id="40127" class="ldml-sentence">Instead, the essential inquiry is whether <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> mutually intended to enter a marital relationship.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="39789" data-sentence-id="40232" class="ldml-sentence">As noted, <span class="ldml-entity">courts</span> should accord weight to evidence of the couple's express agreement to marry, but in the absence of such evidence, the couple's mutual intent may be inferred from their conduct, albeit judged in context.<a href="#note-fr9" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr9">9</a></span> </p><p data-paragraph-id="40452" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="40452" data-sentence-id="40452" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_40452"><span class="ldml-cite">¶55</span></a></span> The conduct <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> identified in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_40452"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lucero</i></span></a></span> can still be relevant to this inquiry.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="40452" data-sentence-id="40531" class="ldml-sentence">Although <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> disavow <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_40531"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lucero</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">'s heteronormative terms like <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"husband and wife,"</span> other factors, such as <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>'</span> cohabitation, reputation in the <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-id="pagenumber_40676" data-val="725" data-rep="P.3d" data-vol="478" data-page_type="bracketed_cite"></span> community as spouses, maintenance of joint banking and credit accounts, purchase and joint ownership of property, filing of joint tax returns, and use of one spouse's surname by the other or by children raised by <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> may still be considered as evidence manifesting the couple's intent to be married.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="40984" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="40984" data-sentence-id="40984" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_40984"><span class="ldml-cite">¶56</span></a></span> In addition, <span class="ldml-entity">a court</span> should consider: evidence of shared financial responsibility, such as leases in both partners' names, joint <span class="ldml-entity">bills</span>, or other payment records; evidence of joint estate planning, including wills, powers of attorney, beneficiary and emergency contact designations; and symbols of commitment, such as ceremonies, anniversaries, cards, gifts, and the couple's references to or labels for one another.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="40984" data-sentence-id="41404" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Courts</span> should also consider <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>' sincerely held beliefs regarding the institution of marriage.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="41506" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="41506" data-sentence-id="41506" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_41506"><span class="ldml-cite">¶57</span></a></span> While the inquiry should focus on the couple's conduct and attitude during the relationship, <span class="ldml-entity">a party</span>'s behavior when a relationship ends may be instructive.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="41506" data-sentence-id="41667" class="ldml-sentence">For example, a partner who asserts a common law marriage years after the couple broke up has a less credible claim than one who promptly asserts spousal status for dissolution or probate purposes.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="41506" data-sentence-id="41864" class="ldml-sentence">In addition, conduct inconsistent with marriage that occurs as a relationship is breaking down does not negate a finding of common law marriage where there is evidence of <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>' earlier mutual agreement to be married.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="41506" data-sentence-id="42088" class="ldml-sentence">In other words, infidelity, physical separation, or other conduct arising as the relationship is ending does not invalidate a couple's prior mutual agreement to enter a common law marriage.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="42277" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="42277" data-sentence-id="42277" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_42277"><span class="ldml-cite">¶58</span></a></span> Finally, <span class="ldml-entity">a court</span> generally must establish the date of any common law marriage.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="42277" data-sentence-id="42360" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> note that ordinarily, where a legal impediment prevents an otherwise valid marriage <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-signal">e.g.</span>, where one of <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> is already married to another person)</span>, the effective date of the marriage is the date the legal impediment is removed.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="42277" data-sentence-id="42598" class="ldml-sentence">However, the former exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage cannot constitute a legal impediment because that exclusion has been held unconstitutional.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="42277" data-sentence-id="42754" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_42598"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">LaFleur</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">¶¶ 4, 33–35</span></a></span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="42780" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="42780" data-sentence-id="42780" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_42780"><span class="ldml-cite">¶59</span></a></span> In sum, <span class="ldml-entity">courts</span> may continue to look to <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>' conduct for evidence of an implied agreement to marry.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="42780" data-sentence-id="42891" class="ldml-sentence">But <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_42891"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lucero</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">'s assumption that the presence of a particular factor necessarily supports a finding of marriage <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(or that its absence necessarily weighs against a finding of marriage)</span> can no longer hold.</span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">Instead, the inferences to be drawn from <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>'</span></span> conduct will vary depending on the circumstances.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="42780" data-sentence-id="43195" class="ldml-sentence">In some <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span>, the presence of a factor is persuasive evidence of marriage <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-signal">e.g.</span>, the taking of a partner's last name following a ceremony)</span>, while its absence is of no significance.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="42780" data-sentence-id="43377" class="ldml-sentence">In <span class="ldml-entity">other cases</span>, the absence of a factor is telling <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-signal">e.g.</span>, the fact that a couple <i class="ldml-italics">never</i> cohabitated)</span>, while the presence of that factor is unhelpful.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="42780" data-sentence-id="43526" class="ldml-sentence">Finally, the significance of a given factor will depend on the individual, the relationship, and the broader circumstances, including cultural differences.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="42780" data-sentence-id="43682" class="ldml-sentence">For example, one same-sex couple's use of the label <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"partner"</span> may convey <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"spouse,"</span> while another's may not.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="42780" data-sentence-id="43790" class="ldml-sentence">In Spanish-speaking communities, a person's use of the reference <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"mujer"</span> may or may not convey <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"wife."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="42780" data-sentence-id="43893" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Mujer</i> , Real Academia Española, <i class="ldml-italics">Diccionario de la Lengua Española</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">23d ed.</span></a></span>, https://dle.rae.es/mujer <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[https://perma.cc/84A9-4YNQ]</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(defining <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"mujer"</span> as both <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"person of the female sex"</span> and <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"wife or female partner"</span>)</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="42780" data-sentence-id="44108" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The court</span> must consider the evidence in all its context.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="42780" data-sentence-id="44165" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See, e.g.</i></span> , <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894391168" data-vids="894391168" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_44204,sentence_44108"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Gill</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">206 A.3d at 879–80</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-relatingauthority">explaining</span> <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span>'s finding that the absence of a ceremony or honeymoon supported an inference against marriage, not because those celebrations are traditional, but in light of evidence of how <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> and their community signified important events</span>)</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="44466" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="44466" data-sentence-id="44466" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_44466"><span class="ldml-cite">¶60</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> recognize that common law marriage determinations present difficult, fact-intensive inquiries.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="44466" data-sentence-id="44568" class="ldml-sentence">But <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> have full faith that our judges, who interact daily with Colorado families in all their diversity, can fairly make these sensitive assessments.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth2" data-ordinal_start="5" data-parsed="true" data-format="upper_case_letters" data-ordinal_end="5" data-content-heading-label="E. Applying the Refined Framework, the Parties Did Not Mutually Intend to Enter into a Common Law Marriage" data-id="heading_44718" id="heading_44718" data-specifier="E" data-value="E. Applying the Refined Framework, the Parties Did Not Mutually Intend to Enter into a Common Law Marriage"><span data-paragraph-id="44718" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="44718" data-sentence-id="44718" class="ldml-sentence">E.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="44718" data-sentence-id="44721" class="ldml-sentence">Applying the Refined Framework, <span class="ldml-entity">the Parties</span> Did Not Mutually Intend to Enter into a Common Law Marriage</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="44824" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="44824" data-sentence-id="44825" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_44825"><span class="ldml-cite">¶61</span></a></span> Applying our revised framework for evaluating a common law marriage to <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> conclude that the record supports <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span>'s conclusion</span> that <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> did not mutually intend to enter a marital relationship and thus, Hogsett failed to meet <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-id="pagenumber_45083" data-val="726" data-rep="P.3d" data-vol="478" data-page_type="bracketed_cite"></span> her burden to establish the existence of a common law marriage.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="45147" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="45147" data-sentence-id="45147" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_45147"><span class="ldml-cite">¶62</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> begin by reviewing evidence of an express agreement to marry.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="45147" data-sentence-id="45216" class="ldml-sentence">Hogsett testified that <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> exchanged custom wedding rings before friends and patrons at a bar, but later <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"backtracked and agreed"</span> that only bar patrons were present.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="45147" data-sentence-id="45390" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">She</span> was unable to confirm the exact date of the ring exchange.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="45147" data-sentence-id="45453" class="ldml-sentence">Neale, in contrast, testified that <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> merely exchanged rings <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[t]</span>o express commitment to the relationship,"</span> that it was <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"nothing significant,"</span> and that there were no family or friends present.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="45147" data-sentence-id="45655" class="ldml-sentence">As noted above, the traditions and symbols that mark marital commitments are not uniform; it is possible that an impromptu, intimate exchange of rings in a bar can be a marriage ceremony if <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> mutually intend it to be.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="45147" data-sentence-id="45883" class="ldml-sentence">Here, <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> found the evidence of this ceremony only partially helpful; it found there was evidence of a committed relationship but that <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> had different interpretations of the significance of the ring exchange.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="46116" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="46116" data-sentence-id="46116" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_46116"><span class="ldml-cite">¶63</span></a></span> Because the evidence of an express agreement to marry is inconclusive, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> turn to evidence of <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>' conduct to determine if such an agreement may be inferred.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="46116" data-sentence-id="46286" class="ldml-sentence">Considering the totality of the circumstances and viewing the evidence in context, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> conclude that the record supports <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span>'s determination that there was no mutual agreement of <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> to enter into a marital relationship.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="46528" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="46528" data-sentence-id="46528" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_46528"><span class="ldml-cite">¶64</span></a></span> Hogsett and Neale never celebrated the date of the ring exchange as an anniversary; <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> did not wear their rings consistently; and <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> never referred to each other as wife or mentioned marriage in letters and cards <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> exchanged.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="46528" data-sentence-id="46765" class="ldml-sentence">True, it is possible that the couple did not celebrate the ring exchange as an anniversary or refer to each other as spouses because <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> were not and could not be formally married at the time.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="46528" data-sentence-id="46959" class="ldml-sentence">But <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> never privately celebrated the ring exchange as a key date in their relationship, and in communications with third <span class="ldml-entity">parties</span>, including family and long-time friends, only Hogsett ever referred to Neale as her wife or described the relationship as a marriage.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="46528" data-sentence-id="47225" class="ldml-sentence">Here, there is no evidence that <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> chose to hide the true nature of their relationship for fear of disapproval or discrimination.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="47363" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="47363" data-sentence-id="47363" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_47363"><span class="ldml-cite">¶65</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">The parties</span> did cohabitate and bought a custom home together, had joint banking and credit accounts, and went to a financial advisor to manage and preserve their assets as a couple.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="47363" data-sentence-id="47549" class="ldml-sentence">This evidence tends to demonstrate a committed relationship of mutual support and obligation, but it is not necessarily dispositive proof of a marital relationship, given the modern trends noted above regarding unmarried couples' varying financial arrangements.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="47363" data-sentence-id="47811" class="ldml-sentence">Hogsett also listed Neale as a primary beneficiary and domestic partner on her <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">401<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(k)</span></span></a></span> and as next of kin and life partner on a medical record, indicating an intent to have a legally recognized relationship.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="47363" data-sentence-id="48018" class="ldml-sentence">Neale, however, did not make any similar designations.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="48072" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="48072" data-sentence-id="48072" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_48072"><span class="ldml-cite">¶66</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referencenote">Some</span></span> of the evidence does not point in either direction.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="48072" data-sentence-id="48133" class="ldml-sentence">For example, Hogsett's certification on a health insurance form that <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> was <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"not married"</span> is of little significance, as the option to be formally married in Colorado was not legally available at the time.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="48072" data-sentence-id="48339" class="ldml-sentence">For the same reason, <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>' failure to file joint tax returns during that time contributes little to the inquiry.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="48072" data-sentence-id="48459" class="ldml-sentence">Notably, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> disagree with <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span>' suggestion that <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>' failure to attempt to get married in a state where same-sex marriage was legal weighs against a finding of common law marriage.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="48072" data-sentence-id="48664" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_48459"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Hogsett</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">¶ 21</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="48072" data-sentence-id="48680" class="ldml-sentence">A couple's decision not to formally marry does not reflect lack of intent to enter a common law marriage.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="48785" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="48785" data-sentence-id="48785" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_48785"><span class="ldml-cite">¶67</span></a></span> As discussed above, <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>' behavior after the relationship ends may be instructive.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="48785" data-sentence-id="48879" class="ldml-sentence">Here, Hogsett points to <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>' <span class="ldml-entity">petition for dissolution of marriage</span> and their mediated separation agreement as evidence that <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> had agreed to be married.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="48785" data-sentence-id="49041" class="ldml-sentence">It is true that Neale was the one to suggest <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"divorce"</span> to Hogsett and that Neale signed the petition and separation agreement without refuting the existence of a marriage.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="48785" data-sentence-id="49213" class="ldml-sentence">That said, <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> credited Neale's testimony that <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"was given bad advice"</span> and thought <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> was required to file for dissolution in order to separate their finances.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="48785" data-sentence-id="49392" class="ldml-sentence">Moreover, <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> acknowledged at their initial status conference in that proceeding that <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> had <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"no <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-id="pagenumber_49499" data-val="727" data-rep="P.3d" data-vol="478" data-page_type="bracketed_cite"></span> marriage or civil union license"</span> and then jointly and promptly dismissed the action.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="48785" data-sentence-id="49585" class="ldml-sentence">In short, the filing of the initial <span class="ldml-entity">petition for dissolution</span> and <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>' separation agreement is not conclusive evidence that <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> intended to enter a common law marriage.<a href="#note-fr10" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr10">10</a></span> </p><p data-paragraph-id="49769" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="49769" data-sentence-id="49769" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_49769"><span class="ldml-cite">¶68</span></a></span> Returning to the core query, it is clear that both <span class="ldml-entity">parties</span> were in a committed, intimate relationship for thirteen years.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="49769" data-sentence-id="49895" class="ldml-sentence">Nevertheless, to establish a common law marriage, there must be mutual intent to enter a marital relationship.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="49769" data-sentence-id="50006" class="ldml-sentence">Although Hogsett testified that <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> had such intent, the record reflects that Neale did not.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="50098" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="50098" data-sentence-id="50098" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_50098"><span class="ldml-cite">¶69</span></a></span> Neale testified that <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"do<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[es]</span>n't believe in marriage.</span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">[<span class="ldml-entity">She</span>]</span> do<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[es]</span>n't believe two <span class="ldml-entity">people</span> can promise each other that <span class="ldml-entity">they</span>'re going to love each other for the rest of their lives."</span></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="50098" data-sentence-id="50285" class="ldml-sentence">And importantly, Hogsett confirmed that Neale expressed to her that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-entity">she</span> doesn't believe in marriage because <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> believes that there's ... a higher power than that."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="50098" data-sentence-id="50451" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The district court</span> thus made a credibility determination that Neale <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"never asked to be married, ... doesn't believe in marriage<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[, and]</span> doesn't believe that two <span class="ldml-entity">people</span> can be in ... love their whole life."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="50098" data-sentence-id="50656" class="ldml-sentence">In sum, while Hogsett may have intended to be married, there is insufficient evidence to conclude such intent was mutual, despite both <span class="ldml-entity">parties</span>' clear commitment to each other and other indicia of a marital relationship.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="50098" data-sentence-id="50876" class="ldml-sentence">Accordingly, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> conclude that there was no common law marriage and affirm <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span>' judgment.<a href="#note-fr11" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr11">11</a></span> </p></div></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-confidences="very_high" data-content-heading-label="III. Conclusion" data-parsed="true" data-types="conclusion" data-ordinal_end="3" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-ordinal_start="3" data-id="heading_50982" id="heading_50982" data-specifier="III" data-value="III. Conclusion"><span data-paragraph-id="50982" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="50982" data-sentence-id="50982" class="ldml-sentence">III.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="50982" data-sentence-id="50987" class="ldml-sentence">Conclusion</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="50997" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="50997" data-sentence-id="50997" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_50997"><span class="ldml-cite">¶70</span></a></span> Today <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> refine the test from <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_50997"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lucero</i></span></a></span> and hold that a common law marriage may be established by the mutual consent or agreement of the couple to enter the legal and social institution of marriage, followed by conduct manifesting that mutual agreement.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="50997" data-sentence-id="51252" class="ldml-sentence">The key inquiry is whether <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> intended to enter a <i class="ldml-italics">marital</i> relationship—that is, to share a life together as spouses in a committed, intimate relationship of mutual support and obligation.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="50997" data-sentence-id="51449" class="ldml-sentence">In assessing whether a common law marriage has been established, <span class="ldml-entity">courts</span> should accord weight to evidence reflecting a couple's express agreement to marry.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="50997" data-sentence-id="51604" class="ldml-sentence">In the absence of such evidence, <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>' agreement may be inferred from their conduct.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="50997" data-sentence-id="51696" class="ldml-sentence">When examining <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>' conduct, the factors identified in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_51696"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lucero</i></span></a></span> can still be relevant to the inquiry but must be assessed in context; the inferences to be drawn from <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>' conduct may vary depending on the circumstances.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="50997" data-sentence-id="51930" class="ldml-sentence">Finally, the manifestation of <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>' agreement to marry need not take a particular form.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="50997" data-sentence-id="52025" class="ldml-sentence">Applying this refined test here, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> hold the record supports <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span>'s conclusion</span> that there was no mutual intent of <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> to enter into a common law marriage.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="50997" data-sentence-id="52199" class="ldml-sentence">Accordingly, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> affirm the judgment of <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="50997" data-sentence-id="52260" class="ldml-sentence">Hogsett's <span class="ldml-entity">request for attorney's fees</span> and <span class="ldml-entity">costs</span> is denied.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="52318" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-4"><span class="ldml-opinionauthor"><span data-paragraph-id="52318" data-sentence-id="52318" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">HART</span></span> <span class="ldml-opiniontype">specially concurs</span></span>.</span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="52349" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-4"><span class="ldml-opinionauthor"><span data-paragraph-id="52349" data-sentence-id="52349" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">CHIEF JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">BOATRIGHT</span></span> concurs in the judgment only</span>.</span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="52402" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-4"><span class="ldml-opinionauthor"><span data-paragraph-id="52402" data-sentence-id="52402" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">SAMOUR</span></span> concurs in the judgment only</span>.</span></span></p></div></div><div class="ldml-opinion"><p data-paragraph-id="52446" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-4"><span class="ldml-opinionauthor content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Concurring Opinion (HART)"><span data-paragraph-id="52446" data-sentence-id="52446" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">HART</span></span>, <span class="ldml-opiniontype">specially concurring</span></span>.</span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="52481" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="52481" data-sentence-id="52481" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_52481"><span class="ldml-cite">¶71</span></a></span> I fully join the majority <span class="ldml-entity">opinion in <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span></span>, as well as in <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895054554" data-vids="895054554" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_52481"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">In re Estate of Yudkin</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">2021 CO 2
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">478 P.3d 732
</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">and</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:inremarriageoflafleurpyfer,2021co3,479p3d869boatright,cj,concurringinpartandconcurringinthejudgment" data-prop-ids="sentence_52481"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">In re Marriage of LaFleur & Pyfer</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">2021 CO 3
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">479 P.3d 869
</span></a></span></span></span>, because the opinions offer helpful refinement of the common law marriage test to be applied to those common law marriages that have already been entered.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="52481" data-sentence-id="52816" class="ldml-sentence">I write separately to express my concerns regarding the validity of common law marriage going forward.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="52481" data-sentence-id="52919" class="ldml-sentence">The historic conditions that once justified the need for the doctrine are no longer <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-id="pagenumber_53003" data-val="728" data-rep="P.3d" data-vol="478" data-page_type="bracketed_cite"></span> present, its application is often unpredictable and inconsistent, and it ties <span class="ldml-entity">parties</span> and <span class="ldml-entity">courts</span> up in needlessly costly litigation.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="52481" data-sentence-id="53137" class="ldml-sentence">It is my view that Colorado should join the overwhelming majority of states and abolish it.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="53228" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="53228" data-sentence-id="53228" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_53228"><span class="ldml-cite">¶72</span></a></span> Common law marriage travelled to colonial America from England, where it had been a creature of English common law.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="53228" data-sentence-id="53348" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_53228"><span class="ldml-refname">Cynthia Grant Bowman, <i class="ldml-italics">A Feminist Proposal to Bring Back Common Law Marriage</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">75 Or. L. Rev. 709
, 719–20</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1996</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="53228" data-sentence-id="53465" class="ldml-sentence">While not recognized in every jurisdiction, it was recognized in many American states and territories, including Colorado.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="53228" data-sentence-id="53588" class="ldml-sentence">There are numerous explanations for the wide acceptance of common law marriage in the early decades of the nation.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="53228" data-sentence-id="53703" class="ldml-sentence">Many posit that frontier America was difficult to travel and sparsely populated, making it unduly complicated for a couple wishing to marry to reach a religious or government official who could perform a formal wedding.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="53228" data-sentence-id="53923" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_53703"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">id.</i> at 722–24</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="53228" data-sentence-id="53943" class="ldml-sentence">Common law marriage was also deemed necessary because of prevailing moral judgments about unwed mothers and children born out of wedlock.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="53228" data-sentence-id="54081" class="ldml-sentence">And it was used as a way to situate financial responsibility for indigent women with their common law husbands rather than with the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"public fisc."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="53228" data-sentence-id="54228" class="ldml-sentence"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i> maj. <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">op. ¶ 29</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="54246" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="54246" data-sentence-id="54246" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_54246"><span class="ldml-cite">¶73</span></a></span> Today's world looks very different—socially, legally, and practically—than the world did when common law marriage was a majority rule among the states.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="54246" data-sentence-id="54402" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-quotation quote">"The paternalistic motivations underlying common-law marriage no longer outweigh the offenses to public policy the doctrine engenders."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="54246" data-sentence-id="54538" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890254422" data-vids="890254422" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_54402"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Stone v. Thompson</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">428 S.C. 79
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">833 S.E.2d 266
, 269</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2019</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="54246" data-sentence-id="54599" class="ldml-sentence">Acceptance in society is no longer dependent on one's marital status or that of one's parents.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="54246" data-sentence-id="54694" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:inremarriageofhogsettneale,2018coa176" data-prop-ids="sentence_54599"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Marriage of Hogsett</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">2018 COA 176
</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_54599"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 36</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:inrethemarriageofhogsettvnealeno17ca1484480p3d696december13,2018"><span class="ldml-cite">480 P.3d 696
</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(Furman, J., specially concurring)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="54246" data-sentence-id="54790" class="ldml-sentence">And Colorado is hardly the frontier state it once was.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="54246" data-sentence-id="54845" class="ldml-sentence">Even residents in our most rural counties have ready access to the legal infrastructure for a licensed marriage.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="54246" data-sentence-id="54958" class="ldml-sentence">The process is quick and simple with minimal cost.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="54246" data-sentence-id="55009" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_55009"><span class="ldml-cite">§§ 14-2-104</span></a></span></span> to - 109, C.R.S. <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity">2020</span>)</span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="55049" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="55049" data-sentence-id="55049" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_55049"><span class="ldml-cite">¶74</span></a></span> As the justifications for common law marriage have receded, social norms surrounding romantic relationships and childrearing have changed and the acceptance of non-marital cohabitation and co-parenting has increased.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="55049" data-sentence-id="55270" class="ldml-sentence"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i> maj. <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">op. ¶¶ 42–43</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="55049" data-sentence-id="55293" class="ldml-sentence">Moreover, many couples choose to cohabit or otherwise enter long-term partnerships that look very much like marriages, but with absolutely no desire or intention to participate in the institution of marriage.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="55049" data-sentence-id="55502" class="ldml-sentence">The majority opinion refines our common law marriage analysis to account for these and other developments.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="55049" data-sentence-id="55609" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_55502"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶¶ 49–59</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="55049" data-sentence-id="55626" class="ldml-sentence">But there is no doubt these modern trends have made it more difficult for a layperson to understand what constitutes a common law marriage.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="55049" data-sentence-id="55766" class="ldml-sentence">In prospectively abolishing common law marriage in its state, the <span class="ldml-entity">South Carolina Supreme Court</span> noted that this confusion has transformed the doctrine into a <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"mechanism which imposes marital bonds upon an ever-growing number of <span class="ldml-entity">people</span> who do not even understand its triggers."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="55049" data-sentence-id="56042" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890254422" data-vids="890254422" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_55766"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Stone</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">833 S.E.2d at 270</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">see also</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_55766"><span class="ldml-refname">Br. of Amicus Curiae Colorado Legal Services</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">at 24</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895054554" data-vids="895054554" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_56182"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">In re Estate of Yudkin</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">2021 CO 2
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">478 P.3d 732
</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-relatingauthority">noting</span> the confusion surrounding common law marriage, as a result of which <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"common law marriage is <span class="ldml-quotation quote">‘over-diagnosed’</span> by many supportive services entities, who may recommend that individuals be safe and file <span class="ldml-entity">a court</span> case that may necessitate <span class="ldml-entity">court</span> and lawyers' fees that might never have been required"</span></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="55049" data-sentence-id="56485" class="ldml-sentence">As modern relationship trends evolve, the incongruity between the doctrine and the behavior and expectations of the public will become only greater and it will grow increasingly difficult <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"to say that <span class="ldml-entity">a court</span> will know a marriage when it sees one."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="55049" data-sentence-id="56734" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_56485"><span class="ldml-cite">Maj. op. ¶ 52</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="56748" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="56748" data-sentence-id="56748" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_56748"><span class="ldml-cite">¶75</span></a></span> Perhaps not surprisingly, then, although many states once recognized common law marriage, today Colorado is one of only ten jurisdictions to do so.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="56748" data-sentence-id="56900" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_56748"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶ 32</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="56748" data-sentence-id="56918" class="ldml-sentence">Most of those states have prospectively eliminated common law marriage through <span class="ldml-entity">legislative enactment</span>, though in some states <span class="ldml-entity">the courts</span> have weighed in to disapprove this common law doctrine.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="56748" data-sentence-id="57109" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_56918"><span class="ldml-cite">id.</span></a></span></i> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">see, e.g.</i></span> , <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890254422" data-vids="890254422" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_57158,sentence_56918"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Stone</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">833 S.E.2d at 270</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-relatingauthority">noting</span> both that many states had abolished the doctrine legislatively and that the elimination of common law marriage in South Carolina would be prospective only</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890902640" data-vids="890902640" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_57411,sentence_56918"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">PNC Bank Corp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd.</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">831 A.2d 1269
, 1279</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Pa. Commw. Ct.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2003</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-relatingauthority">explaining</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity">the court</span>'s <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-id="pagenumber_57434" data-val="729" data-rep="P.3d" data-vol="478" data-page_type="bracketed_cite"></span> view</span> that common law marriage should no longer be recognized</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="56748" data-sentence-id="57498" class="ldml-sentence">In Colorado, common law marriage has been incorporated into statutory law only to the limited extent that <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_57498"><span class="ldml-cite">section 14-2-109.5</span></a></span>, C.R.S. <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity">2020</span>)</span>, requires that <span class="ldml-entity">parties</span> to a common law marriage be at least eighteen years old and that the marriage not violate any of the prohibitions set forth in <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_57498"><span class="ldml-cite">section 14-2-110</span></a></span>, C.R.S. <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity">2020</span>)</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="56748" data-sentence-id="57821" class="ldml-sentence">Given these limited statutory provisions, I believe that <span class="ldml-entity">the courts</span> could take up the question of whether to continue to recognize common law marriage.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="56748" data-sentence-id="57973" class="ldml-sentence">The better course, however, would be for the General Assembly to consider whether the doctrine should be prospectively abolished in <span class="ldml-entity">the state</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="56748" data-sentence-id="58116" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_57973"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Marriage of Hogsett</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">¶¶ 35–36</span></a></span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="58152" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="58152" data-sentence-id="58152" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_58152"><span class="ldml-cite">¶76 A</span></a></span> guiding principle of our system of justice should be to promote consistent, predictable, and just outcomes.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="58152" data-sentence-id="58266" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:firstnationalbankinfortcollinsvrostek514p2d314,182colo437,62alr3d1066sept24,1973" data-prop-ids="sentence_58152"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">First Nat'l Bank v. Rostek</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">182 Colo. 437
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">514 P.2d 314
, 318</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1973</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="58152" data-sentence-id="58336" class="ldml-sentence">Our common law marriage analysis is often at odds with this commitment.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="58152" data-sentence-id="58408" class="ldml-sentence">As <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> see in the trilogy of <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span> <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> decide today, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-entity">courts</span> struggle mightily to determine if and when <span class="ldml-entity">parties</span> expressed the requisite intent to be married."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="58152" data-sentence-id="58565" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890254422" data-vids="890254422" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_58408"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Stone</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">833 S.E.2d at 269</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="58152" data-sentence-id="58592" class="ldml-sentence">Further, the fact-intensive inquiry required is lengthy and expensive and delves into sensitive areas of <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>' lives.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="58152" data-sentence-id="58717" class="ldml-sentence">Requiring those who wish to be married in Colorado to obtain a marriage license would remedy these issues and provide a bright-line rule for <span class="ldml-entity">courts</span> to rely on.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="58876" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="58876" data-sentence-id="58876" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_58876"><span class="ldml-cite">¶77</span></a></span> For these reasons, I urge <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span> to abolish the common law marriage doctrine.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-opinion"><p data-paragraph-id="58966" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-4"><span class="ldml-opinionauthor content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Concurring Opinion (BOATRIGHT)"><span data-paragraph-id="58966" data-sentence-id="58966" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">CHIEF JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">BOATRIGHT</span></span>, <span class="ldml-opiniontype">concurring in the judgment only</span></span>.</span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="59023" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="59023" data-sentence-id="59023" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_59023"><span class="ldml-cite">¶78</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[T]</span>he cardinal principle of judicial restraint <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[is that]</span> if it is not necessary to decide more, it is necessary not to decide more."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="59023" data-sentence-id="59161" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:pdklaboratories,incvunitedstatesdrugenforcementadministrationdccir2004,362f3d786,799,360usappdc344roberts,j,concurringinpartandconcurringinjudgment" data-prop-ids="sentence_59023"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">PDK Lab'ys Inc. v. U.S. Drug Enf't Admin.</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">362 F.3d 786
, 799</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">D.C. Cir.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2004</span>)</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(Roberts, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="59023" data-sentence-id="59306" class="ldml-sentence">Today, the majority announces new factors for establishing common law marriage even though those factors are ultimately irrelevant under <span class="ldml-entity">the circumstances of <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span></span>: Both <span class="ldml-entity">Marcia Neale</span> and <span class="ldml-entity">Edi Hogsett</span> testified that Neale <i class="ldml-italics">did not intend to be married</i> , and <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> made a credibility determination that Neale <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"never asked to be married, ... doesn't believe in marriage<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[, and doesn't]</span> believe that two <span class="ldml-entity">people</span> can be in ... love their whole life <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[sic]</span>."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="59023" data-sentence-id="59771" class="ldml-sentence">Therefore, the couple's relationship indisputably did not satisfy the fundamental common law marriage requirement of <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"mutual intent to enter a marital relationship,"</span> maj. <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">op. ¶ 68</span></a></span>, and no factors—new or old—can change that reality.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="59023" data-sentence-id="60003" class="ldml-sentence">Thus, in my view, the majority decides more than is necessary because the record clearly evinces—without considering any factors—that no common law marriage existed.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="59023" data-sentence-id="60169" class="ldml-sentence">And in deciding what it need not, the majority also potentially broadens the definition of marriage in a way that I fear will only further confuse the already complex concept of common law marriage.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="59023" data-sentence-id="60368" class="ldml-sentence">Because I agree, however, with the majority's ultimate conclusion that Neale and Hogsett did not enter into a common law marriage, I respectfully concur in the judgment only.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="60542" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="60542" data-sentence-id="60542" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_60542"><span class="ldml-cite">¶79</span></a></span> The majority repeatedly affirms the long-held principle that a common law marriage exists only with <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"mutual consent or agreement of the couple to enter the legal and social institution of marriage."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="60542" data-sentence-id="60745" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_60542"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶ 3</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">see also</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_60542"><span class="ldml-cite">52 Am. Jur. 2d</span></a></span></span> <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_60802"><span class="ldml-refname">Marriage</span> <span class="ldml-cite">§ 39</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"For a common-law marriage to be formed, there <i class="ldml-italics">must</i> be a mutual intent to be married, as well as a mutual consent."</span></span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis added</span>)</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">footnote omitted</span>)</span>)</span></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="60542" data-sentence-id="60957" class="ldml-sentence">Intent to be married forms the cornerstone of every marriage, common law or otherwise—in fact, it is <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[t]</span>he core query"</span> in proving a common law marriage.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="60542" data-sentence-id="61111" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_60957"><span class="ldml-cite">Maj. op. ¶ 3</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="60542" data-sentence-id="61125" class="ldml-sentence">In that regard, the majority is correct.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="61165" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="61165" data-sentence-id="61165" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_61165"><span class="ldml-cite">¶80</span></a></span> Despite the majority's repeated emphasis on the vital nature of marital intent, however, it glosses over the reality that the factors for establishing common law marriage need only be employed when there exists credible disagreement as to <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>' intent.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="61165" data-sentence-id="61429" class="ldml-sentence">Indeed, the very purpose of using factors to examine <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>' conduct is to ascertain their intent.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="61165" data-sentence-id="61533" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_61429"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_61551"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶ 54</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[I]</span>n the absence of <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[an express agreement to marry]</span>, the couple's mutual intent <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[to enter a marital relationship]</span> may be inferred from their conduct ...."</span></span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">see also</span> <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-id="pagenumber_61718" data-val="730" data-rep="P.3d" data-vol="478" data-page_type="bracketed_cite"></span> </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895054554" data-vids="895054554" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Estate of Yudkin</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">2021 CO 2
</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 23</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895054554" data-vids="895054554" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_61769"><span class="ldml-cite">478 P.3d 732
</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"The purpose of examining the couple's conduct is ... to <i class="ldml-italics">discover</i> their intent."</span></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="61165" data-sentence-id="61852" class="ldml-sentence">If one <span class="ldml-entity">party</span> claims, for example, that both <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> and her partner intended to be married, but her partner denies such intent, then <span class="ldml-entity">a court</span> should look at <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>' relevant conduct to determine whether the denying partner actually possessed such intent.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="61165" data-sentence-id="62107" class="ldml-sentence">In other words, the factors for establishing common law marriage become relevant only when there exists a credible disagreement between <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> about their intent to be married.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="61165" data-sentence-id="62289" class="ldml-sentence">If, however, there exists no credible disagreement, then the factors are irrelevant.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="62373" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="62373" data-sentence-id="62373" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_62373"><span class="ldml-cite">¶81</span></a></span> Here, the record makes clear that there exists no credible disagreement about Neale and Hogsett's mutual intent to be married—a fact the majority acknowledges when it says that <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"found <span class="ldml-quotation quote">‘credible evidence that <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[Neale]</span> did not believe that <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> was married’</span> to Hogsett."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="62373" data-sentence-id="62654" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_62373"><span class="ldml-cite">Maj. op. ¶ 17</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="62373" data-sentence-id="62669" class="ldml-sentence">In point of fact, Neale testified that <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> never believed in marriage, and Hogsett admitted that <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> was aware of this belief throughout the duration of her relationship with Neale, testifying that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[Neale]</span> doesn't believe in marriage because <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> believes that there's something, a higher power than that."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="62373" data-sentence-id="62976" class="ldml-sentence">Although many of the factors under the now-superseded <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888175630" data-vids="888175630" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_62976"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lucero</i></span></a></span> standard</span> weighed in favor of finding a common law marriage, <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> correctly concluded that no common law marriage existed because it found credible Neale's assertion that <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"never asked to be married, ... doesn't believe in marriage<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[, and doesn't]</span> believe that two <span class="ldml-entity">people</span> can be in ... love their whole life <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[sic]</span>."</span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="63367" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="63367" data-sentence-id="63367" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_63367"><span class="ldml-cite">¶82</span></a></span> In my view, <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span>'s finding should obviate any further inquiry into whether Neale and Hogsett entered into a common law marriage.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="63367" data-sentence-id="63514" class="ldml-sentence">This is particularly true considering that the determination of <span class="ldml-entity">parties</span>' intent to marry <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"relies on the factfinder's credibility determinations and weighing of the evidence."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="63367" data-sentence-id="63689" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_63514"><span class="ldml-cite">Maj. op. at ¶ 50</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="63367" data-sentence-id="63707" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The district court</span> made those credibility determinations, weighed the evidence, and found no mutual intent to be married.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="63367" data-sentence-id="63829" class="ldml-sentence">That absence of mutual intent to be married is dispositive.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="63367" data-sentence-id="63889" class="ldml-sentence">The inquiry should end.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="63367" data-sentence-id="63913" class="ldml-sentence">The majority, however, presses on.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="63947" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="63947" data-sentence-id="63947" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_63947"><span class="ldml-cite">¶83</span></a></span> The structure of the majority's analysis, itself, speaks against applying the factors on <span class="ldml-entity">these facts</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="63947" data-sentence-id="64053" class="ldml-sentence">After finding evidence of an express agreement to marry <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"inconclusive,"</span> the majority evaluates evidence under several of the new factors.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="63947" data-sentence-id="64191" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_64053"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶¶ 63–67</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="63947" data-sentence-id="64208" class="ldml-sentence">This exercise yields little: only the undisputed conclusion that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"both <span class="ldml-entity">parties</span> were in a committed, intimate relationship for thirteen years."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="63947" data-sentence-id="64351" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_64208"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶ 68</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="63947" data-sentence-id="64364" class="ldml-sentence">Then, circling back to the beginning and <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[r]</span>eturning to the core query,"</span> the majority re-emphasizes that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"there must be mutual intent to enter a marital relationship."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="63947" data-sentence-id="64533" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_64364"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="63947" data-sentence-id="64537" class="ldml-sentence">Then, relying <i class="ldml-italics">not on the factors</i> but on Neale's testimony that <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> did not believe in marriage and Hogsett's testimony acknowledging Neale's views, the majority ultimately explains that, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"while Hogsett may have intended to be married, there is insufficient evidence to conclude such intent was mutual, despite both <span class="ldml-entity">parties</span>' clear commitment to each other and other indicia of a marital relationship."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="63947" data-sentence-id="64938" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_64537"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶ 69</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="63947" data-sentence-id="64951" class="ldml-sentence">Therefore, the majority finds that Neale and Hogsett did not enter into a common law marriage.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="63947" data-sentence-id="65046" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_64951"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="65049" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="65049" data-sentence-id="65049" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_65049"><span class="ldml-cite">¶84</span></a></span> To announce new factors on <span class="ldml-entity">these facts</span>—which, as the majority demonstrates, do not require application of the factors—violates the cardinal principle of judicial restraint.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="65049" data-sentence-id="65226" class="ldml-sentence">To be clear, I take no issue with the new factors announced by the majority, themselves, and I appreciate the majority's desire to update the test for establishing common law marriage.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="65049" data-sentence-id="65411" class="ldml-sentence">But what I do take issue with is that the majority's announcement of those factors <i class="ldml-italics">on <span class="ldml-entity">these facts</span></i> obscures and confuses the purpose of applying common law marriage factors: to help <span class="ldml-entity">a court</span> determine whether <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> intended to be married.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="65049" data-sentence-id="65654" class="ldml-sentence">It is a futile exercise to apply factors to determine such intent when every <span class="ldml-entity">party</span>—including <span class="ldml-entity">the party</span> who has the burden of proving common law marriage—agrees that the intent to be married never existed.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="65049" data-sentence-id="65859" class="ldml-sentence">I worry that the majority needlessly directs <span class="ldml-entity">courts</span> to engage in a factor-based analysis, even in <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span> with—as here—an undisputed lack of <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"mutual consent or agreement <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-id="pagenumber_66027" data-val="731" data-rep="P.3d" data-vol="478" data-page_type="bracketed_cite"></span> of the couple to enter the legal and social institution of marriage."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="65049" data-sentence-id="66098" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_65859"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶ 3</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="66109" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="66109" data-sentence-id="66109" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_66109"><span class="ldml-cite">¶85</span></a></span> I also worry that the majority potentially broadens the definition of marriage in a way that will cause additional confusion.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="66109" data-sentence-id="66239" class="ldml-sentence">The majority equates intent to enter into a marital relationship with intent to be together <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"in a committed, intimate relationship of mutual support and obligation."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="66109" data-sentence-id="66405" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_66239"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="66109" data-sentence-id="66409" class="ldml-sentence">But while a marital relationship and a <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"committed, intimate relationship of mutual support and obligation"</span> certainly overlap, <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> are not necessarily the same.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="66109" data-sentence-id="66570" class="ldml-sentence">In fact, relationships in which one or both of <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> do not intend to be married could potentially satisfy this definition of marriage.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="66109" data-sentence-id="66712" class="ldml-sentence">The majority, itself, acknowledges as much.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="66109" data-sentence-id="66756" class="ldml-sentence">Indeed, while reasoning that Neale and Hogsett's cohabitation, purchase of a home, and joint financial accounts <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"tend<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ ]</span> to demonstrate"</span> a <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"committed, intimate relationship of mutual support and obligation,"</span> the majority ultimately concludes that these factors <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[are]</span> <i class="ldml-italics">not necessarily dispositive</i> proof of a marital relationship,"</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_66756"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶ 65</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis added</span>)</span></span>, and finds that <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> did not enter into a common law marriage.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="66109" data-sentence-id="67185" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_66756"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶ 69</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="67197" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="67197" data-sentence-id="67197" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_67197"><span class="ldml-cite">¶86</span></a></span> In addition to causing confusion, further defining marriage is also unnecessary.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="67197" data-sentence-id="67282" class="ldml-sentence">As <span class="ldml-entity">the Supreme Court of New Jersey</span> recognized, when partners announce <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> are married, no further explanation is necessary, because <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[w]</span>hen you say that you are married ... everyone can instantly relate to you and your relationship <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[and others]</span> don't have to wonder what kind of relationship it is or how to refer to it or how much to respect it."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="67197" data-sentence-id="67631" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895500278" data-vids="895500278" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_67282"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lewis v. Harris</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">188 N.J. 415
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">908 A.2d 196
, 226</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2006</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="67197" data-sentence-id="67689" class="ldml-sentence">In other words, marriage is marriage.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="67726" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="67726" data-sentence-id="67726" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_67726"><span class="ldml-cite">¶87</span></a></span> In sum, I do not think it appropriate for the majority to announce new factors for establishing common law marriage on <span class="ldml-entity">these facts</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="67726" data-sentence-id="67862" class="ldml-sentence">Neale and Hogsett's relationship indisputably did not satisfy the fundamental requirement of mutual intent, and I worry that the factors announced by the majority as well as the potential broadening of the definition of marriage will only further confuse the already complex concept of common law marriage.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="67726" data-sentence-id="68169" class="ldml-sentence">Because I agree, however, with the majority's ultimate conclusion that Neale and Hogsett did not enter into a common law marriage, I respectfully concur in the judgment only.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-opinion"><p data-paragraph-id="68343" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-4"><span class="ldml-opinionauthor content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Concurring Opinion (SAMOUR)"><span data-paragraph-id="68343" data-sentence-id="68343" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">SAMOUR</span></span>, <span class="ldml-opiniontype">concurring in the judgment only</span></span>.</span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="68391" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="68391" data-sentence-id="68391" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_68391"><span class="ldml-cite">¶88</span></a></span> For the reasons articulated in my dissenting opinion in the companion <span class="ldml-entity">case of <a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:inremarriageoflafleurpyfer,2021co3,479p3d869boatright,cj,concurringinpartandconcurringinthejudgment" data-prop-ids="sentence_68391"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">In re Marriage of LaFleur & Pyfer</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">2021 CO 3
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">479 P.3d 869
</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(Samour, J., dissenting)</span></a></span>, I respectfully concur in the judgment only.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="68391" data-sentence-id="68603" class="ldml-sentence">I recognize that <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894234531" data-vids="894234531" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_68603"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Obergefell v. Hodges</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">576 U.S. 644
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">135 S.Ct. 2584
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">192 L.Ed.2d 609
</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2015</span>)</span></a></span>, requires <span class="ldml-entity">us</span> to treat our state's ban on same-sex marriage during the relevant timeframe as though it never existed.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="68391" data-sentence-id="68813" class="ldml-sentence">But even so, and even assuming, alternatively, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894234531" data-vids="894234531" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_68813"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Obergefell</i></span></a></span> 's retroactive application, I would conclude that <span class="ldml-entity">Edi L. Hogsett</span> and <span class="ldml-entity">Marcia E. Neale</span> could not have mutually intended or agreed to enter into the <i class="ldml-italics">legal</i> relationship of marriage in Colorado between <span class="ldml-entity">December 2002</span> and <span class="ldml-entity">November 2014</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="68391" data-sentence-id="69101" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_68813"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">LaFleur</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">¶ 76</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="68391" data-sentence-id="69121" class="ldml-sentence">Because <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894234531" data-vids="894234531" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_69121"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Obergefell</i></span></a></span> was not announced until <span class="ldml-entity">June 2015</span>, Hogsett and Neale could not have intended or agreed to be in a legally sanctioned marriage.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="68391" data-sentence-id="69267" class="ldml-sentence">As a matter of law, neither <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894234531" data-vids="894234531" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_69267"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Obergefell</i></span></a></span> 's effect on our state law nor <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894234531" data-vids="894234531" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_69267"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Obergefell</i></span></a></span> 's retroactive application can transform Hogsett and Neale's mutual intent and agreement at the time <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> exchanged rings in <span class="ldml-entity">2002</span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="69478" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="69478" data-sentence-id="69478" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_69478"><span class="ldml-cite">¶89</span></a></span> Only after <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894234531" data-vids="894234531" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_69478"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Obergefell</i></span></a></span> rendered our state's prohibition on same-sex marriage unconstitutional in <span class="ldml-entity">June 2015</span> could Hogsett and Neale have mutually intended and agreed to enter into the <i class="ldml-italics">legal</i> relationship of marriage.<a href="#note-fr_1" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr_1">1</a></span> <span data-paragraph-id="69478" data-sentence-id="69696" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_69478"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">LaFleur</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">¶ 77</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="69478" data-sentence-id="69716" class="ldml-sentence">And, because common law <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-id="pagenumber_69740" data-val="732" data-rep="P.3d" data-vol="478" data-page_type="bracketed_cite"></span> marriage in Colorado requires mutual intent and agreement to enter into the <i class="ldml-italics">legal</i> relationship of marriage, I would hold that, as a matter of law, Hogsett and Neale could not have entered into a common law marriage during the relevant timeframe.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="69478" data-sentence-id="69987" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_69716"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶¶ 76–77</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="70008" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="70008" data-sentence-id="70008" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_70008"><span class="ldml-cite">¶90</span></a></span> I would therefore affirm <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span>' judgment on different grounds than the majority.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="70008" data-sentence-id="70108" class="ldml-sentence">Accordingly, I concur in the judgment only.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-notes content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Footnotes"><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="70151" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr1" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr1">1</a> <span data-paragraph-id="70151" data-sentence-id="70152" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_70172,sentence_5273"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">LaFleur</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">¶ 30</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">describing the timeline of <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span> invalidating Colorado's constitutional and statutory same-sex marriage exclusions</span>)</span></span>.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="70288" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr2" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr2">2</a> <span data-paragraph-id="70288" data-sentence-id="70289" class="ldml-sentence">Because neither <span class="ldml-entity">party</span> here contests <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894234531" data-vids="894234531" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_70289"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Obergefell</i></span></a></span> 's retroactive application, that question is not before <span class="ldml-entity">us</span> in <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span>.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="70408" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr3" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr3">3</a> <span data-paragraph-id="70408" data-sentence-id="70409" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> granted certiorari to review the following issues:</span></p><div class="ldml-embeddeddocument"><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_70462" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="70462" class="ldml-sentence">1.</span> <span data-sentence-id="70465" class="ldml-sentence">What factors should <span class="ldml-entity">a court</span> consider in determining whether a common law marriage exists between same-sex partners?</span></blockquote><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_70580" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="70580" class="ldml-sentence">2.</span> <span data-sentence-id="70583" class="ldml-sentence">Whether <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> erred in affirming <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span>'s conclusion</span> that no common law marriage existed between the same-sex couple here.</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="70729" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr4" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr4">4</a> <span data-paragraph-id="70729" data-sentence-id="70730" class="ldml-sentence">For just a few examples of the legal consequences of marriage, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal">see</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/944226231" data-vids="944226231" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_70730"><span class="ldml-cite">8 U.S.C. § 1154
</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2018</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">permitting married U.S. citizens to petition for immigration status for their foreign-born spouses</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/944414145" data-vids="944414145" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_70730"><span class="ldml-cite">26 U.S.C. § 6013
</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2018</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">allowing married couples to file federal taxes jointly</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/944123257" data-vids="944123257" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_70730"><span class="ldml-cite">42 U.S.C. § 416
</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2018</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">providing federal old-age, survivors, and disability insurance benefits to spouses</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 13-90-107<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span>, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">establishing scope of the marital privilege</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 14-10-113, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">requiring equitable division of marital property upon divorce</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 15-11-102, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">providing for spousal intestate succession</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 18-5-102<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(d)</span>, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">prohibiting forgery of false tax returns</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 18-6-201<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span>, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">specifying that bigamy is a class 6 felony</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 18-6-301<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span>, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">making it a class 4 felony to knowingly marry an ancestor or descendant</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 19-4-105, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">presuming parentage of both spouses for child born to married couple</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">and</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-refname">Denver Rev. Mun. Code</span> <span class="ldml-cite">§ 18-412</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">providing group health insurance coverage for retirees' spouses</span>)</span></span>.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="71812" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr5" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr5">5</a> <span data-paragraph-id="71812" data-sentence-id="71813" class="ldml-sentence">The substantive limitations on licensed marriage are few: Colorado prohibits marriages between <span class="ldml-entity">parties</span> under eighteen years of age <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(except with judicial approval)</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 14-2-106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(I)</span>, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span>, and marriages that involve one <span class="ldml-entity">party</span> who is in another valid marriage or civil union; marriages between a descendant and ancestor; marriages between siblings; and marriages between an uncle or aunt and their niece or nephew, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 14-2-110, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="71812" data-sentence-id="72265" class="ldml-sentence">Beyond these limitations, <span class="ldml-entity">the state</span> simply accepts a licensed marriage as valid.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="72345" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr6" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr6">6</a> <span data-paragraph-id="72345" data-sentence-id="72346" class="ldml-sentence">Eight other states <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(Iowa, Kansas, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Utah, and Texas)</span> and the <span class="ldml-entity">District of Columbia</span> still recognize common law marriage.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="72345" data-sentence-id="72511" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_72346"><span class="ldml-refname">1 Karen Moulding & National Lawyers Guild, <i class="ldml-italics">Sexual Orientation and the Law</i></span> <span class="ldml-cite">§ 2:9 n.15</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity">2020</span> Update)</span></span>.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="72610" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr7" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr7">7</a> <span data-paragraph-id="72610" data-sentence-id="72611" class="ldml-sentence">As the <span class="ldml-entity">U.S. Supreme Court</span> recognized in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894234531" data-vids="894234531" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_72611"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Obergefell</i></span></a></span> , until recently, <span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[s]</span>ame-sex intimacy remained a crime in many <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[s]</span>tates.</span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">Gays and lesbians were prohibited from most government employment, barred from military service, excluded under immigration laws, targeted by police, and burdened in their rights to associate."</span></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="72610" data-sentence-id="72930" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894234531" data-vids="894234531" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_72611"><span class="ldml-cite">576 U.S. at
661</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">135 S.Ct. 2584
</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="72610" data-sentence-id="72963" class="ldml-sentence">Same-sex intimacy was not decriminalized across the country until <span class="ldml-entity">2003</span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">see</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887082723" data-vids="887082723" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_72963"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Lawrence v. Texas</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">539 U.S. 558
, 578</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">123 S.Ct. 2472
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">156 L.Ed.2d 508
</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2003</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span></span> nationwide recognition of same-sex marriages came only in <span class="ldml-entity">2015</span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">see</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894234531" data-vids="894234531" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_72963"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Obergefell</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">576 U.S. at
644</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">135 S.Ct. 2584
</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span></span> and it was not until this past summer that <span class="ldml-entity">the Court</span> ruled that to fire someone on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity violates <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_72963"><span class="ldml-cite">Title VII</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">see</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:bostockvclaytoncnty,georgia,590us644,644,140sct1731,1734,207led2d2182020" data-prop-ids="sentence_72963"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Bostock v. Clayton Cnty.</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">––– U.S. ––––</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">140 S. Ct. 1731
, 1737</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">207 L.Ed.2d 218
</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="73488" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="73488" data-sentence-id="73488" class="ldml-sentence">Colorado is no exception to this history.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="73488" data-sentence-id="73530" class="ldml-sentence">In <span class="ldml-entity">1992</span>, Colorado voters approved <span class="ldml-entity">an amendment</span> to <span class="ldml-entity">the state</span> <span class="ldml-entity">constitution</span>, later invalidated by the <span class="ldml-entity">U.S. Supreme Court in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893250161" data-vids="893250161" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_73530"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Romer v. Evans</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">517 U.S. 620
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">116 S.Ct. 1620
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">134 L.Ed.2d 855
</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1996</span>)</span></a></span></span>, that sought to prevent any branch or political <span class="ldml-entity">subdivision of <span class="ldml-entity">the state</span></span> from protecting persons against discrimination based on sexual orientation.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="73488" data-sentence-id="73870" class="ldml-sentence">It was not until <span class="ldml-entity">2008</span> that LGBTQ Coloradans found protection in state law from discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">see</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 14-15-102, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span></span>, and not until the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_73870"><span class="ldml-cite">Designated Beneficiaries Agreements Act of 2009</span></a></span> that same-sex relationships were bestowed any formal recognition by <span class="ldml-entity">the state</span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">see</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 15-22-102, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2009</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="74223" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr8" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr8">8</a> <span data-paragraph-id="74223" data-sentence-id="74224" class="ldml-sentence">In Colorado, for example, a couple could formally marry by self-solemnizing at the top of Sugarloaf Mountain, placing their pet's paw print on the witness signature to the union, and identifying the wedding location on the marriage certificate in GPS coordinates.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="74487" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr9" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr9">9</a> <span data-paragraph-id="74487" data-sentence-id="74488" class="ldml-sentence">Discerning the intent of a same-sex couple may require particular care.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="74487" data-sentence-id="74560" class="ldml-sentence">Before formal same-sex marriage was recognized, many same-sex couples expressed their commitment through the exchange of rings or in ceremonies ranging from the simple to the elaborate.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="74487" data-sentence-id="74746" class="ldml-sentence">But such acts of commitment varied widely; to automatically ascribe marital intent to them without examining other circumstances of the relationship fails to appreciate the diversity of attitudes in the LGBTQ community toward the institution of marriage.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="75000" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr10" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr10">10</a> <span data-paragraph-id="75000" data-sentence-id="75001" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> reject Hogsett's reliance on appeal on the parol evidence rule.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="75000" data-sentence-id="75068" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The court of appeals</span> declined to consider this contention because it was raised for the first time on appeal.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="75000" data-sentence-id="75178" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_75068"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Hogsett</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">¶¶ 26–27</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="75000" data-sentence-id="75198" class="ldml-sentence">Even assuming that this contention was preserved, <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> properly considered the extrinsic evidence proffered by both <span class="ldml-entity">parties</span> to determine whether there was a mutual agreement to be married.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="75397" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr11" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr11">11</a> <span data-paragraph-id="75397" data-sentence-id="75398" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> decline to consider Hogsett's <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"estoppel by contract"</span> argument as <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> agree with <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> that this contention was not properly preserved.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="75397" data-sentence-id="75550" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_75398"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Hogsett</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">¶ 27</span></a></span>.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="75565" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr_1" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr_1">1</a> <span data-paragraph-id="75565" data-sentence-id="75566" class="ldml-sentence">The majority notes in <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:inremarriageoflafleurpyfer,2021co3,479p3d869boatright,cj,concurringinpartandconcurringinthejudgment" data-prop-ids="sentence_75566"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">In re Marriage of LaFleur & Pyfer</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">2021 CO 3
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">479 P.3d 869
</span></a></span>, that in <span class="ldml-entity">2014</span>, eight months before <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894234531" data-vids="894234531" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_75566"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Obergefell</i></span></a></span> , two Tenth Circuit <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span> out of Utah and Oklahoma had effectively declared Colorado's prohibition on same-sex marriage unconstitutional.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="75565" data-sentence-id="75832" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:inremarriageoflafleurpyfer,2021co3,479p3d869boatright,cj,concurringinpartandconcurringinthejudgment"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_75845,sentence_75566"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶ 30</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">indicating that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"Colorado began to recognize same-sex marriages"</span> in <span class="ldml-entity">October 2014</span>, just days before Hogsett and Neale ended their relationship</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="75565" data-sentence-id="75989" class="ldml-sentence">Be that as it may, given the way <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> framed the question <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> agreed to review in <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:inremarriageoflafleurpyfer,2021co3,479p3d869boatright,cj,concurringinpartandconcurringinthejudgment" data-prop-ids="sentence_75989"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">LaFleur</i></span></a></span> , I assume for purposes of this dissent that Colorado's prohibition on same-sex marriage became unconstitutional when <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894234531" data-vids="894234531" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_75989"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Obergefell</i></span></a></span> was penned in <span class="ldml-entity">June 2015</span>.</span></p></div></div></div></div> </div> </div>