Over the last few years we have seen an increasing number of claims between “spouses” based upon the existence of an alleged “common-law” marriage. Why is this?
For one, the institution of marriage potentially creates significant property rights in each spouse. Additionally, insurance, retirement and death benefits may be available to a spouse where they are unavailable to a non-spousal partner. A great deal of money can ride on a determination that a marriage exists (or does not exist).
The doctrine of common-law marriage allowed a man and woman to be treated as “married” if it could be shown that they expressed words of present intention to be married, that they held themselves out to the world as being married, and that they cohabited regularly. Each of these elements would have to be present in order to prove such a marriage existed.
Courts generally have been skeptical of claims of common-law marriage. In order to prove such a marriage the courts have required “clear and convincing” evidence, which is a higher standard than the customary preponderance of evidence normally required. Courts remain hesitant to find a common-law marriage without substantial evidence showing that both parties intended one.
Effective January 2, 2005 the doctrine of common-law marriage was abolished in Pennsylvania, but on a prospective basis only. Valid common-law marriages entered into prior to January 2, 2005 remain unaffected, subject, of course, to the continuing problem of demonstrating that such a marriage existed.
— Kevin Palmer