1 ... S eeTe x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 2 ... “I nf or m alm ar r i age ” i s t he l ega l t er m f ort he col l oqui alt er m “ com m onl a w m a rri a g e .” 

## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 0 8 - 3 7 1 - CV I N THE E ST ATE OFGE ORGE ANTHONY W A LKER, JR. , D ECEA SED

----- ----- -- FR O M CO UN TY CO URT AT LAW NO . 1 OF W I CH I TA CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- T h e s ol e i ssue i n t hi s case i s w het hert he t r i al court ’ s f i ndi ngs off act unde r l yi ng i t s con cl us i on ofl aw t hatt her e w asno i nf or m alm ar r i age 2bet w een Pam el a W al ke ran d Geor ge W al ke rar e a gai ns tt he gr ea tw ei ghtan d p r e p o n d e r a n c e o ft h e e v i d e n c e . We a f f i r m.2 Back gr ound Pam el a and G eor ge m eti n 1 99 5 an d began l i vi ng t ogetheri n 1 99 8. They bui l ta hom e toget heri n 20 01 , m oved i nt o i ti n 20 02 , and l i ved t her e t ogether u n ti l G e o rg e ’sd e a th i n 2 0 0 5 . Pam el a f i l ed a pet i t i on i n G eor ge’ s es t at e’ s pr oba t e p r oce edi ngs , s ee ki ng a d ec l ar at i on t hats he and G eor ge had en t er ed i nt o a n i nf or m alm ar r i agean d th a t s h e w a sh i sw i d o w . T h e i s s u e w a stri e d to th e b e n c h . Pam el a t es t i f i ed t hatG eor ge bough ta w edd i ng r i ng f or her i n 1999. She sai d t hey con si der ed a m ar r i age cer em ony aft er t hey m oved i nt o t he new house i n 2 0 0 2 b u t s o m e o n e a t th e c o u rth o u s e to l d th e m th a t “ b e c a u s e o f [t h e i r] st at us ofl i vi ng t ogether as husband and w i f e, [ t hey] w er e al r eady m ar r i ed, ” so t heyde ci ded t he ce r em ony w asunne ce ss ary. Pam el a t es t i f i ed t hats he and G eor ge agr ee d t o behusba nd and w i f e a nd t hat“ t hat ’ s how [ t hey ] w er e i nt r oduc ed. T hat ’ s how [ t hei r ] bi l l s and s t uf fan d e v e ry th i n g w a s ” a n d th a t t h e y“ [p ]re ttym u c h ” to l d th e w o rl d th a t th e yw e re husban d and w i f e. But she sai d hernam e w as noton t h e d e e d to t he new h o u se b e c a u se h e r cred i t w a s b a d . S h e also sa i d tha t t h e yfi l e d se p a rate i n c o m e taxretu rns b e c a u se taxp rep a rers to l d the m “i t w a s th e b e st w a y ” to f i l e. Pam el a acknow l edged t hatshe r epr esent ed t hatshe w as unm ar r i ed w hen sh e a ppl i ed f orpubl i c a ss i st anc e i n 2002 t o pa y f oran ope r at i on f orhe rs on,3

but she sai d she “had no cho i ce” because G eor ge w as of fw or k, havi ng br oken hi s f oot , an d t hey ha d no i nco m e o ri ns ur anc e. She al so ad m i t t ed t hats he i n d i c a te d s h e w a sd i v o rc e d o n a n o c c u p a ti o n a l i n j u ryfo rm i n 2 0 0 3 . G eor ge and P am el a t ook s ever al vacat i ons t ogether , i ncl udi ng t r i ps t o S an A nt oni o, La s V ega s, Pam el a’ s f am i l y r eun i on i n Am ar i l l o, an d Geor ge’ s uni on m ee t i ng i n Dal l as . Pa m el a sa i d t he y bough ta dog t oge t heran d t hatG eor ge tre ated he rch i l dren as h i s ow n. Sh e testi f i ed t ha tshe an d G eo r ge w ere pl anni ng a “bi g, f or m al w eddi ng” f orA ugu st20 06 , but G eor ge di ed i n O ct ober 2 0 0 5 .M a c kIn g r a m t e s t if ie d t h a tG e o r g e c a lle d P a m e la h isw if e a n d h is“ o ld l ady” and t hatG eor ge i nt r odu ced Pam el a as hi s w i f e t he f i r stt i m e I ngr am m et h e r. Jor dan Br ow n, Pam el a’ s son f r om a pr i orm ar r i age, i denti f i ed G eor ge as h iss t e p f a t h e ra n d t e s t if ie d t h a th e in t r o d u c e d G e o r g e t o s c h o o l f r ie n d sa sh is fa th e r. Bri t t any B r ow n, Pam el a’ s daughterf r om a pr i orm ar r i ag e , tes ti f i ed t hat sh e, t oo, i nt r oduc ed G eor ge t o he rf r i end s ashe rf at heran d t hathew oul d go t o herschool w hen she got i nt o t r oub l e t her e.4

L in d a B o u g h t o n , a s c h o o l n u r s e a tJ o r d a n a n d B r it t a n y ’s h ig h s c h o o l, tes ti fi e d tha t P a m e l a referred to G e o rge as h e r hu sb a n d a n d tha t he referred to h e r a sh i sw i fe . R uben A l ani z, a cow or kerofG eor ge’ s f ort w el ve o r thi rt een year s, te s ti fi e d th a t G e o rg e re fe rre d to P a m e l a a sh i sw i fe . Th e t r i al courtm ade t he f ol l ow i ng f i ndi ngs off act , am ong ot her s; t hese a r e t h e s p e c if ic f in d in g sP a m e la c h a lle n g e so n a p p e a l: 16. [ G eor ge an d Pam el a] l i ved t oge t herat5217 [ Br ook w ood] D r i v e , W i c h i t a F a l l s , W i c h i t a Co u n t y , Te x a s a n d t he [m ]o rtg a g e o n t h e p ro p e rtyd a te d 4 -1 -0 2 l i s ts [G e o rg e ], a si ngl e m an. [ Pam el a] i s notl i st ed on t he dee d.

. . . . 18 . [ G eor ge and P am el a] neverf i l ed i ncom e t ax r et ur ns as husban d and w i f e. 19 . Th ey pl anned a bi g w eddi ng i n A ugu stof20 06 [ , but ] i tnever t ook pl ace. 20. [ Pam el a] cl ai m ed t o bes i ngl e w he n sh e f i l ed f orCH I PS f or herdaugh t er ’ s i nsur ance. 21 . [ Pam el a] cl ai m ed on 8
- 22
- 03 t o be di vor ced w hen she f i l ed f oran oc cup at i ona l i nj ury w i t h t he W i chi t a F al l s I nde pen den t S c h o o l D i stri c t. 22 . [ Pam el a] m ar ked “si ngl e” on a box on [ a] W FI S F em pl oyee d o c u m e n t.

. . . .5

28. [ Pam el a a nd Geo r ge ] di d no t a gr e e t o be m a r r i e d, bu tt hey di d l i ve t ogether i n t hi s S t at e, but not as husband and w i f e. Th e t r i al courtal so m ade t he f ol l ow i ng con cl usi ons ofl aw :

• The e vi den cew asf ac t ual l y i ns uf f i ci entt o s upportt he re q u i re d e l e m e n ts o f a n i n fo rm a l m a rri a g e [;]

• A n i nf or m alm ar r i agedi d notex i st b et w ee n [ Pam el a a nd G eor ge; an d]

• [P a m e l a ] i sn o t th e w i d o w a n d s u rv i v i n g s p o u s e o f [G e o rg e ]. Pam el a di ed on Jul y 9, 20 08 , and t he t em por ary adm i ni st r at or o f her est at e i s pur sui ng t hi s appeal . I n a si ngl e i ssue, she chal l enges t he f ac tu al suf f i ci ency of t he evi dence t o suppo rtt he f i ndi ngs off actr eci t ed abov e. S t andar d ofRev i ew Fi ndi ngs off actent er ed i n a case t r i ed t o t he courthave t he sam e f or ce a n d d i g n it ya s a j u ry ’sa n s w e rsto j u ryq u e s ti o n s . A nderson v. City of Seven Po i n ts , 8 0 6 S .W .2 d 7 9 1 , 7 9 4 (T e x . 1 9 9 1 ). T h e tri a l c o u rt’s fi n d i n g s o f fa c t a re r evi ew abl e f orl ega l an d f ac t uals uf f i ci enc y oft he evi den cet o s upportt hem by th e s a m e s ta n d a rd st h a t a re a p p l i e d in re v i e w i n g e v i d e n c e s u p p o rti n g a j u ry ’s a n s w e r. O rti

z v. Jones , 9 1 7 S .W .2 d 7 7 0 , 7 7 2 (T e x . 1 9 9 6 ); Ca ta lin av. Bla s del, 8 8 1 S .W .2 d 2 9 5 , 2 9 7 (T e x . 1 9 9 4 ). W h e n rev i e w i n g a n a ss e rt i o n tha t t h e ev i d e n c e i s fa c tu a l l yi n su ffi c i e n t t o su pporta f i nd i ng , w e s etas i de t he f i ndi ng on l y i f , aft erco ns i der i ng a nd6

w e i g h i n g a ll o f th e e v i d e n c e i n th e re c o rd p e rti n e n t to th a t fi n d i n g , w e d e te rm i n e th a t th e e v i d e n c e s u p p o rti n g th e fi n d i n g i s s o w e a k , o r s o c o n tra ry t o t he over w hel m i ng w ei ght ofal l t he evi dence, thatthe answ ershoul d be set a s i d e a n d a n e w tri a l o rd e re d . Pool v. Ford Motor

Co. , 715 S. W . 2d 629, 635 (T e x . 1 9 8 6 ) (o p . o n re h ’g ); Gar za v. A lvi

ar, 3 9 5 S .W .2 d 8 2 1 , 8 2 3 (T e x . 1 9 6 5 ); I nre K i ng ’s E sta te , 1 5 0 T e x . 6 6 2 , 2 4 4S .W .2 d 6 6 0 , 6 6 1 (1 9 5 1 ).

I nf or m alM ar r i age Th e e l e m e nt so fa n i nf or m al m a r r i a gea r e t ha ta m a n a nd w om a n ( 1) agr eed t o be m ar r i ed, ( 2) l i ved t ogether i n t hi s S t at e as husban d and w i f e aft er th e a g re e m e n t, a n d ( 3 ) in th i sS ta te re p re s e n te d to o th e rsth a t th e yw e re m a rri e d . T e x . F a m . C o d e A n n . § 2 .4 0 1 (a )(2 ) (V e rn o n 2 0 0 6 ). To es t abl i sh an ag r ee m entt o bem ar r i ed, “ t he ev i den cem us ts how t he part i es i nt ended t o have a pr ese nt , i m m edi at e, and per m anent m ar i t al re l a ti o n s h i p a n d th a t th e yd i d i n f a c ta g re e to b e h u s b a n d a n d w i fe .”Er i s v. Phares , 3 9 S .W .3 d 7 0 8 , 7 1 4( T e x . A p p .— H o u sto n [ 1 st D i st.] 2 0 0 1 , p e t. den i ed) . The agr ee m entt o bem ar r i ed m ay be es t abl i sh ed by d i r ec tor c i rc u m s ta n ti a l e v i d e n c e . Russ ell v. Russ ell, 8 6 5 S .W .2 d 9 2 9 , 9 3 3 (T e x . 1 9 9 3 ). Th e t est i m ony o fone oft he part i es t o t he m ar r i age const i t ut es di r ectevi dence th e p a rti e sa g re e d to b e m a rri e d . S e eE r is , 39 S. W . 3d at714 ( ci t i ng Col lora v. Na va rro , 5 7 4 S .W .2 d 6 5 , 7 0 (T e x .1 9 7 8 )); I n re Estate of

Gi essel, 734 S. W . 2d7

27 , 32 ( Tex . A pp. — H oust on [ 1stD i st . ] 1 98 7, w r i tref ’ d n. r . e. ) . T he cond uct ofthe part i es and ev i dence ofco habi t at i on and r epr esent at i ons t o ot her s m ay con st i t ut e ci r cum st ant i al evi den ce of an agr ee m entde pen di ng on t he f ac t s of th e c a s e . Se eRuss ell, 8 6 5 S .W .2 d a t 9 3 3 ; E r is , 39 S . W . 3d a t714. T h e elem e n t of h o l d i n g o u t r e q u i res m o re th a n o c c a sion a l refere n c e s to e a c h o th e r a s“ w i fe ” a n d “ h u s b a n d .”Fl ores v. Flores , 847 S. W . 2d 648, 653 (T e x . A p p .— W a c o 1 9 9 3 , w ri t d e n i e d ); see al so Ex parte Th reet, 160 Te x. 482, 485 –86 , 333 S . W . 2d 361, 3 63– 64 ( 196 0) ( f i ndi ng no ev i den ceofhol di ng ou t w her e w om an i nt r oduc ed m an ashe rhus ban d t o tw o or three f r i end s, t ol d a fe w o th e rsth a t s h e w a sm a rri e d , a n d w o re w e d d i n g b a n d g i v e n to h e r b ym a n ); D ann a v. D ann a , N o. 0 5 - 05- 004 72- C V , 2006 W L 785621 , at*1 ( Tex. A p p .— D a l l a s M a rch 2 9 , 2 0 0 6 , n o p e t. ) (m e m . o p .) ( “[I ]so l a ted refere n c e s to each ot heras husband and w i f e al one do notest abl i sh a hol di ng ou t [ . ] ”) D i sc us si on I n t hi s ca se , Pam el a’ s t es t i m ony i s di r ec tev i den cet hats he and G eor ge agr eed t o be m ar r i ed. Th er e i s al so evi dence t hatt hey l i ved t ogetheri n T exas as husband and w i f e aft erag ree i n g to be m ar r i ed, and t her e i s evi dence t hat t heyr epr ese nt ed t o ot her s t hatt heyw er e m ar r i ed. Thus , t her e i s so m e evi dence t o suppo rt a l l t hr ee i nf or m al
- m ar r i age el em ent s. But t her e i s al so su bs t ant i alev i den cet o t he con t r ary, su ch asPam el a’ s and G eor ge’ s se par at el y-8

f ile d in c o m e t a xre t u r n s , t h e a b s e n c e o fP a m e la ’s n a m e o n t h e d e e d t o t h e ir r es i den ce , an d Pa m el a’ s as se rt i on t hats he w ass i ngl e o rdi vor ce d on var i ous docu m ent s. The quest i on bef or e u s i s w het hert he evi dence supp ort i ng t he t r i al c o u rt’sfi n d i n g sth a t th e re w a sn o in fo rm a l m a rri a g e iss o w e a k , o r s o c o n tra ry t o t he over w hel m i ng w ei ght ofal l t he evi dence, t hatt he f i ndi ngs shoul d be set a s i d e . See Po ol, 7 1 5 S .W .2 d a t 6 3 5 ; Garza , 395 S. W . 2d a t823. A ppel l antci t es t w o cases f ort he pr opo sit i on t hatconf l i ct i ng evi dence si m i l art o t he evi dence i n t hi s ca se w i l l supporta f i ndi ng of an i nf or m al m ar r i age . I n Es ta teo f Giessel, K ucher a t est i f i ed t hatshe and G i esselhad agr ee d t o bem ar r i ed and t her ea ft erl i ve d t oget herashus ban d a nd w i f e f or t w ent y y ear s unt i l G i essel ’ s deat h. 73 4 S . W . 2d at28 . Som e w i t nesses t est i f i ed t hat G i essel r ef er r ed t o K ucher a as hi s w i f e, but ot he r w i t nesses te s ti fi e d th a t h e d e n i e d b e i n g m a rri e d a n d v o w e d n e v e r to m a rry . Id. a t29–3 0. D ur i ng t he pur port ed i nf or m al m ar r i age, K ucher a had execut ed a m i ner al l ease as “Ros i e K u c h er a, a w i dow , ” and G i esselhad executed a m i ner al l ease as “John J. G i essel , a si ngl e m an. ” Id . at28 . The part i es al so f i l ed separ at e t ax re tu rn s . Id. a t3 0 . A ju ryf o u n d t h a tK u c h e r a a n d G ie s s e l h a d b e e n in f o r m a lly m a rri e d . Id . at28 . O n appeal , G i essel ’ s f am i l y chal l enged t he l egal and f act ual su f f i ci enc y oft he e vi de ncet o s upportt he i nf or m al
- m ar r i agef i ndi ng, an d t he9

c o u rto f ap p e a l s h e l d tha t t h e ev i d e n c e w a s b o th leg a l l ya n d fac tu a l l ysu ffi c i e n t. Id. a t31, 32. A s i m i l arf ac tpa t t er n e m er ged i n t he ot herca seA ppe l l antr el i eson, Rom anov. Newel

l Recycl i ng of San A ntoni

o, L. P. , No. 04- 07- 00084
- CV , 2008 W L2 2 7 9 7 4(T e x . A p p .— S a n A n to n i o J a n . 3 0 , 2 0 0 8 , n o p e t.). S a ra G u e rro t es t i f i ed t hat sh e and A l ej and r o G onz al es beg an coh abi t i ng i n 199 0 an d so on th e re a fte r b e g a n re fe rri n g to th e m s e l v e sa sh u s b a n d a n d w i fe . Id. at*4. She s a i d th a t G o n z a l e s i n tro d u c e d h e r to h i sfri e n d sa sh i sw i fe . Id . a t* 5 . S o me w it n e s s e st e s t if ie d t h a tG o n z a le sr e f e r r e d t o G u e r r o a sh isw if e , b u to t h e r ss a id h e r e f e r r e d t o h e r a sh i sg i rl fri e n d . Id. a t*5. I n 1997, Gue r r o s i gn e d l oan doc um ent s t hatde sc r i bed her as a si ngl e per so n; and w hen G onz al esdi ed, s he f i l l ed out an i nsur ance cl ai m fo rm , a nd i n answ ert o t he quest i on w het her G onz al esw asm ar r i ed att he t i m e of h i s deat h, s he w r ot e, “ nott o m y k n o w l e d g e. ” Id . a t * 4 . T h e tri a l c o u rt fo u n d th a t G u e rro a n d G o n z a l e sw e re in f o r m a llym a r r ie d , a n d t h e c o u rto fa p p e a lsh e ld t h a tt h e e v id e n c e w a sle g a lly a n d fa c tu a l l ys u fficie n t to s u p p o rt th a t fi n d i n g . Id. a t*6. W e a g r e e w it h A p p e lla n tt h a tt h e e v id e n c e in Estate of Gi essel an d Rom ano i s s i m i l a r t o t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h i s c a s e . Bu t w e d i s a g r ee ab outt he si gni f i cance oft hose si m i l ar i t i es. W i t h r egar d t o f act ual suf f i ci ency, nei t her case st ands f ort he pr opo si t i on t hata f actpat t er n l i ke t he one i n ourcase10

pr ecl udes a f i ndi ng ofn o i nf or m al m ar r i age, as A ppel l antco nt ends. I nst ead, as t he Gi essel co u rtn o ted , “T h e re w a s s u b sta n ti a l ev i d e n c e b e fo re th e ju ryto suppo rtei t heran af f i r m at i ve o r n e g a t i ve answ ert o t he [ i nf or m al
- m ar r i age] i ssue. ” 73 4 S . W . 2d at32 . A nd as t he Rom anocourtobser ved, “[T ]hese c o n fl i c ts d o n o t p re c l u d e a fi n d i n g th a t a c o m m o n l a w m a rri a g e e x i s te d . . .[;] r at he r , t hec on f l i c t sg o t o t hew e i gh to ft hee vi de nc e a nd w e r e f ort het r i al cou rt t o r e s o l v e . ” 20 08 W L 22 79 74 , a t *6 . Th u s , t h e r e a l s i g n i f i ca nce of Giessel an d Rom ano to th e c a s e b e fo re u s i s th e a p p l i c a ti o n o f th e f a c t u a lsu f f i ci enc y s t and ar d ofr evi ew : W hen t her e i s con f l i ct i ng evi de nce a boutt he e x is te n c e o f a n i n fo rm a l m a rri a g e l i k e th e e v i d e n c e i n th o s e c a s e sa n d i n th is ca se , w het her t he part i es ent er ed i nt o an i nf or m al m ar r i age i s a que st i on f ort he fa c tfin d e r. I n t hi s ca se, the t r i alco urtr es ol ved t he con f l i ct i ng e vi den ceby f i ndi ng t h a tP a m e la a n d G e o r g e h a d n o te n t e r e d in t o a n in f o r m a l m a r r ia g e . V ie w in g a ll oft he evi dence, w e cannot say t hatt he evi dence s upp ort i ng t he f i ndi ng i s so w eak, ort he w ei ght of t he contr ary evi dence s o over w hel m i ng, t hatt he answ er s h o u l d b e s e t a s i d e a n d a n e w t r ia l o rd e re d . See Pool, 715 S. W . 2d a t635; Garza , 3 9 5 S .W .2 d a t 8 2 3 . T h u s , th e e v i d e n c e i s fa c tu a l l ys u fficie n t to s u p p o rt t he t r i al court ’ s f i ndi ng, and w e over r ul e A ppel l ant ’ s sol e i ssue.11 C onc l us i on H a v i n g o v e rru l e d A p p e l l a n t’ss o l e i s s u e , w e a ffir m th e tri a l c o u rt’s j u d g m e n t.

A N N E GA RD N ER J U S T I C E PA N EL: DA U PH I N O T, G A RD N ER, an d W A LKER, JJ. DEL I VERE D: J ul y 9, 2009