 |
Common Law Marriage Abolished in Pennsylvania
by Susan M. KeyCommon law marriage is a legacy from times when travel was difficult and clergy were rare. Despite a consistent trend to formalize marriage in every state, there was a reluctance to tamper with the occasional common law union because of the drastic effect it could have on the legitimacy of children and spousal benefits from employment and estate claims. But for Pennsylvania, the matter is now settled, at least for the future. Governor Ed Rendell signed into law in November 2004 an Act which amends the law to ban common law marriages contracted in Pennsylvania after January 1, 2005. Act 194, which amends the Domestic Relations Code (23 Pa. C.S.A. § 1103), effectively ends the debate among the various state courts in the past year over the status of common law marriage in Pennsylvania. The amendment is not retroactive, so there may still be litigation over common law marriages allegedly contracted prior to January 1, 2005. One could argue that common law marriage was abolished as early as September 13, 2003, the date of the earliest court decision to that effect. The burden of proving common law marriage falls on the proponent, and is a heavy one. The elements of a common law marriage, surprising to some, are not limited merely to a period of co-habitation. Instead, one must prove the following three elements of a common law marriage existed: 1. constant cohabitation, 2. a general reputation in the community that the parties are married, and 3. an actual exchange of words in the present tense, spoken with the specific purpose that the legal relationship of husband of wife be created. Recognizing the difficult burden of proving a common law marriage, the courts have wrestled for years with the issue of its existence. In September 2003, the Commonwealth Court declared for the first time in PNC Bank Corp. v. Stamos, (W.C.A.B.) 831 A.2d 1269 (2003), that it was abolishing common law marriage in Pennsylvania. However, it wasn't clear whether other courts would follow that decision which arose from a workers' compensation claim. In Bell v. Ferraro, 849 A.2d 1233 (2004), the Superior Court affirmed a lower court decision that no common law marriage existed because of a lack of evidence. However, in a footnote, the Superior Court stated they were not bound by the Commonwealth Court's abolition of common law marriage and reiterated that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania had declined the opportunity to abolish common law marriage, deferring such action to the legislature. The Superior Court next ruled that while the Superior Court may not be bound by the Commonwealth Court's decision in Stamos, the trial courts were bound by it. In Stackhouse v. Stackhouse, 2004 Pa. Super. 427 (2004), the Superior Court limited the application of Stamos's abolition of common law marriage to be a "purely prospective application." In other words, common law marriage was found to be abolished from the date of the Stamos decision, September 17, 2003, and forward. Governor Rendell has made it clear that from January 2005 forward, no one can enter into a contract for common law marriage. The Stackhouse decision, unfortunately, confuses the effective date of the abolition by suggesting common law marriage was abolished in September 2003. Of course, anyone trying to prove common law marriage existed prior to those dates, still has the burden of proof described above. |
 |
|
|
Home ·
About the Firm ·
Attorney Directory ·
Practice Areas ·
News and Events ·
Contact Us · © 2006 Peacock Keller & Ecker, LLP, 70 East Beau Street, Washington, PA 15301 · Phone: (724) 222-4520 or in PA: 1-800-242-8897 · Fax: (724) 222-3318 · Terms and Conditions |
|