Opinion ID: 1465938
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Serious Intent to Enter into a Husband-Wife Relationship

Text: To establish a common-law marriage, Paulette was required to provide clear and convincing evidence of the parties' intent to enter the husband-wife relationship. See Sardonis, 106 R.I. at 472, 261 A.2d at 24. Although intent may be inferred from cohabitation, declarations, reputation, and other competent evidence, id., cohabitation alone is not conclusive of intent to be husband and wife, and such evidence may be rebutted by counter-proof, see Peck v. Peck, 12 R.I. 485, 488 (1880). Furthermore, it is required that the parties must mutually and presently intend to be husband and wife rather than merely become engaged to be husband and wife at some point in the future. See Ibello, 47 R.I. at 482, 133 A. at 802 (intent evidenced when parties consented to be husband and wife, presently, and at once entered into a changed relationship) (emphasis added); Odd Fellows' Beneficial Association of Rhode Island v. Carpenter, 17 R.I. 720, 722, 24 A. 578, 578 (1892) (In order to constitute a [common-law marriage], the parties must agree to become husband and wife presently. The consent which is the foundation and essence of the contract must be mutual and given at the same time, and it must not be attended by an agreement that some intervening thing shall be done before the marriage takes effect  .); Peck, 12 R.I. at 488 (the parties [must] consent to be husband and wife presently, and though cohabitation following an engagement is evidence of such consent, it is not conclusive, but only prima facie evidence of it, and as such open to rebuttal by counter proof). To support her claim, Paulette testified that Todd proposed marriage in 1989, that she accepted Todd's proposal, that she considered their common-law marriage to have begun in 1991, and that at some later point, in 1998, Todd gave her a ring. She presented evidence that they cohabitated for a period in excess of ten years, and that she began to use his last name in 2002. She also submitted that Todd called her my old lady, that he never corrected her when she referred to him as her husband, and that he gave away her daughter as father of the bride. At best, however, the evidence in this case is conflicting. The record reveals that the parties never had a ceremony or celebration of any kind, and the ring that she referred to was given to her at Christmas. Indeed, defendant testified that he did not consider himself to be engaged, but rather simply living with Paulette in a long-term relationship. Also, Todd testified that he did not correct Paulette when she called him husband because he did not want to cause a conflict. The evidence also established that Paulette declared herself, under penalty of perjury, to be a single person on her income tax returns and on her bankruptcy petition, and that Todd listed himself as single on his tax returns and on a mortgage application. A review of this discordant evidence leads us to the inescapable conclusion that the trial justice was correct to hold that the plaintiff did not provide clear and convincing evidence of the parties' intent to be husband and wife. The ring was not a clear indication of Todd's intent because it was given on Christmas and may have been intended as a Christmas gift. Todd also gave her the ring about nine years after his proposal and about seven years after Paulette contended that they already were living as husband and wife. If indeed this was an engagement ring as plaintiff asserts, the timing of these circumstances negates any inference that Todd believed he had been married from 1991 to 1998. Likewise, the declarations of the parties do not clearly support any serious intent to be husband and wife. Both Paulette and Todd consistently declared themselves as single on legal documents and forms, including their tax returns, as well as Paulette's bankruptcy petition. The trial justice correctly concluded that these declarations strongly weighed against any serious intent to be husband and wife. [5] See DeMelo, 844 A.2d at 178 (holding lack of intent to be married evidenced by tax returns, mortgage applications, and insurance applications listing party as single; lack of designation of other party as beneficiary on pension and 401K; and lack of holding joint property); Lovegrove v. McCutcheon, 712 A.2d 874, 874 (R.I.1998) (mem.) (holding parties cohabitating for fifteen years were not in common-law marriage because evidence revealed that the plaintiff designated herself as single on employment applications, the home was purchased under the defendant's name alone, and they did not pool their assets). Furthermore, the record reflects that although Todd referred to Paulette as my old lady, (an equivocal term at best), he did not refer to her as his wife, except possibly on two occasions: once to the house painter and the other time to new acquaintances at the wedding of Paulette's daughter in Florida. The record also reveals that Todd did not even tell his family that he was married to Paulette, his friends did not believe that they were married, and when Paulette referred to him as her husband, he did not correct her in an effort to avoid confrontation. Moreover, although Paulette began to use Todd's name, that practice did not begin until 2002, and even then she only used it on certain business papers and in her business dealings. She did not change her name with the Registry of Motor Vehicles, and there was no evidence that she changed her name with any other government entities, utilities, or private accounts. These ambiguities and inconsistencies do not support an argument that the couple had any serious mutual intent to be in a husband-wife relationship. Furthermore, there was testimony that Todd believed that having a formal ceremony was just a matter of paperwork, and that Paulette wanted Todd to be with her because he wanted to be with her, and not because paperwork required it. Although a formal ceremony is not required to enter into a common-law marriage, the facts before the Family Court do not clearly support a mutual present intent to be husband and wife. Rather, these facts just as easily demonstrate that the parties simply desired to maintain the status quo and that they did not desire to change the nature of their relationship to involve paperwork or additional obligations. Therefore, it is our opinion that the trial justice was correct when she concluded that at most, the parties may have shared some vague intent to marry in the future, but that there was no clear and convincing evidence of a mutual present intent to enter into a husband-wife relationship.