Court Opinion

ID: 9774773
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:33:11.835674+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:15.548344
License: Public Domain

GONZALEZ, Justice,
dissenting.
In 1989 the legislature repealed the Family Code provision which provided that an agreement to enter into a common-law marriage could be inferred if one of the parties proved that they lived together as husband and wife and represented to others that they were married. Today, the Court ignores this amendment and in effect holds *935that a fact finder can look to cohabitation and holding-out as circumstantial evidence of an agreement to be married. This approach is identical to the process of inferences that the legislature repealed. Under our constitution, the legislature is authorized to make this change and we should not disregard it. To do so violates the separation of powers doctrine. I would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals in Lorensen v. Weaber1 and reverse and render in Russell v. Russell.2
I. The Amendment
The 1989 amendment to section 1.91 of the Texas Family Code requires direct evidence of an agreement to be married in order to establish an informal marriage. Prior to the amendment, subsection (b) of section 1.91 allowed courts to infer the existence of an agreement to be married as long as the elements of cohabitation and holding-out were proved. Subsection (b) was repealed by the 1989 amendment and replaced with a statute of limitations.3
As acknowledged by the Court, by amending the statute, the legislature intended that each of the elements listed in subsection (a)(2), an agreement to be married, cohabitation, and holding-out, must be proved. It is no longer permissible simply to infer the existence of an agreement to be married from proof of cohabitation and holding-out. While I agree that each element must now be proved, I do not agree with the Court that an agreement to be married can be proved by circumstantial evidence.
The court of appeals in Russell held that the requisite agreement could be “inferred from direct or circumstantial evidence which preponderates that the parties lived together in the State of Texas and did, in Texas, represent to others that they were married.” *936Russell, 838 S.W.2d at 913. According to the Russell court, circumstantial evidence of an agreement to be married would include having lived together, having held oneself out as being married, and any evidence which would go, directly or indirectly, to prove cohabitation or holding oneself out as married. Id. The Russell court held that allowing the agreement to be proved by circumstantial evidence would be necessary, since an express agreement would be rare and difficult to prove. Id. Today, the Court supports this result, citing the proposition that “[a]ny ultimate fact may be proved by circumstantial evidence.” State v. $11,014.00, 820 S.W.2d 783, 785 (Tex.1991).
Both the Russell court of appeals and this Court ignore the intent of the legislature in amending the statute. Under their interpretation of the statute, the amendment did nothing more than add a statute of limitations; it did not affect the proof necessary to show the existence of an agreement to be married. Under this interpretation, the legislature accomplished nothing by repealing the old subsection (b). This interpretation violates a fundamental tenet that the legislature is never presumed to do a useless act. Hunter v. Fort Worth Capital Corp., 620 S.W.2d 547, 551 (Tex.1981); Cameron v. Terrell & Garrett, Inc., 618 S.W.2d 535, 540 (Tex.1981) (holding that every word or phrase excluded from a statute is presumed to be excluded for a purpose).
In my opinion, the only conceivable reason to omit the language regarding permissible inferences in the new version of the statute is that the legislature sought to inform Texans that these inferences are no longer permissible — that an agreement to be married must be proved by direct evidence. The state of the law prior to the 1989 amendment allowed the existence of an agreement to be married to be proved by proving cohabitation and holding-out. By deleting the provision which permitted this inference to be made, the legislature indicated a clear intent not to allow such inferences in the future. See Allen Sales and Servicecenter, Inc. v. Ryan, 525 S.W.2d 863, 866 (Tex.1975) (holding that statutes should be construed consistent with existing law unless a contrary intent is clear); Transportation Ins. Co. v. Maksyn, 580 S.W.2d 334, 338 (Tex.1979) (holding that deletion of a provision indicates a legislative intent to reject the proposition stated in the deleted language).
II. The Effect
The legislature retained the requirement of an agreement to be married in order to prove an informal marriage. However, Section 1.91 no longer permits the existence of an agreement to be inferred upon proof of the other required elements, cohabitation and holding oneself out as married. It follows that an agreement to be married cannot be proved circumstantially using the evidence that proves cohabitation and holding-out, because this requires making an inference that the legislature no longer permits. To suggest, as the Court does today, that the legislature meant that proof of cohabitation and holding-out no longer gives rise to an inference of an agreement to be married, but now is circumstantial evidence of that agreement, flies in the face of reason. In both cases, the evidence used to prove cohabitation and holding-out gives rise to the inference of the existence of an agreement. Are we to believe that the legislature wants Texas courts to continue as before, and simply call it something different?
In my opinion, an agreement to be married must be proved directly in order to find an informal marriage under Texas Family Code Section 1.91. This direct proof can be written or oral. When one party claims that an agreement existed and the other denies it, the issue becomes one of credibility for the fact finder to resolve. This approach probably will make it more difficult to prove an informal marriage, but I believe that is what the legislature intended when it amended the statute. If, as in Weaber, no party is willing to state, under oath, that there was an explicit agreement to be married, an agreement should not be inferred. This rule will prevent “accidental” marriages, in which cohabitation and holding-out were used, under the *937old act, to bind a party who never intended to enter into a marriage, formal or informal. The intent to enter into a marriage must be affirmatively shown, which is, I believe, what the legislature intended.
One can only imagine the confusion and frustration of the litigants and the court of appeals in Russell when they learn that today’s decision resolves nothing. The Court’s opinion stops short of actually deciding anything, and states, “We express no opinion concerning the legal sufficiency of the evidence ... [to support a finding of common-law marriage].” 865 S.W.2d at 934 n. 5. The Court mistakenly concludes that it need not reach the legal sufficiency of the evidence because it misreads the court of appeals’ opinion. The Court states, “In Russell v. Russell, the court [of appeals] erroneously failed to consider whether there was legally or factually sufficient evidence of an agreement to be married.” 865 S.W.2d 934. The court of appeals did no such thing. To the contrary, it is difficult to discern enough difference between the opinion of the court of appeals and today’s Majority opinion to justify reversal. Like the Majority, the court of appeals recognized that an agreement to be married is a separate element of proof. Russell, 838 S.W.2d at 914. Both courts recognize the 1989 amendment and rely on Professor McKnight for their interpretation of the amendment. Id. at 913 (quoting Joseph W. McKnight, Family Law: Husband and Wife, 44 Sw.L.J. 1 (1990)). Consistent with the Majority opinion, the court of appeals states:
We hold that evidence sufficient to support a finding on the second and third elements can support a finding on the first element, “that they did in fact agree to be husband and wife.”
Russell, 838 S.W.2d at 914. The Majority is in such agreement with the court of appeals that it is difficult to discern any difference between the two opinions.
Perhaps the difference between the opinions is that the court of appeals opined that cohabitation and holding-out constitutes “evidence-of-a-kind” of an agreement to be married, which the opposing party is free to rebut or counter. Id. at 913. In other words, the court of appeals found some evidence of an agreement to be married. Today the Court reverses Russell and says that in some cases evidence of cohabitation and holding-out is evidence of an agreement to be married, but refuses to say if this is one of those eases. With no guidance from this Court, the court of appeals may only make a blind guess, making a second application for writ of error probable.
Also, curiously, today the Court lets stand an opinion that holds:
Thus, in light of Peggy’s failure to produce any direct evidence of an agreement or any evidence from which an agreement might be inferred, we hold that there is a complete absence of evidence of a vital fact, i.e., an agreement to marry, and that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the implied finding.
Flores v. Flores, 847 S.W.2d 648 (Tex.App.—Waco 1993, writ denied). In Flores, the plaintiff produced evidence of cohabitation and holding-out, yet the court of appeals held that there was no evidence of an agreement to be married. In my opinion, today’s actions will serve only to confound the bench and bar. We can and should do better.
HECHT, J., joins this dissenting opinion.

. 840 S.W.2d 644. Vivian Weaber and Ronald Lorensen began a relationship in ¡982. They lived together in Illinois, Iowa, New Mexico, and California before moving to Texas in 1990. During their relationship, they rented property under the names of Vivian and Ronald Lorensen, and used the name Lorensen for certain utility bills. Mr. Lorensen filed as a "single” person on his tax returns, but claimed Ms. Weaber as his dependent, designating her as a "friend” on each return. There were no children born to them. The trial court held that a common-law marriage existed, but the court of appeals reversed and rendered on the basis that there was no evidence of an agreement to be married.

. 838 S.W.2d 909. Believing that death was imminent, James and Margaret Russell were ceremonially married in Texas in 1981. Prior to this ceremony, from 1964 to 1981, not only did Mr. Russell father five children with Mrs. Russell, but during this same period, he fathered and supported other children by other women. The underlying issue in this case is whether the parties entered into a common-law marriage before the ceremonial marriage so that Mrs. Russell can ■ share the assets that Mr. Russell acquired before 1981. The trial court found a common-law marriage and the court of appeals agreed, but it reversed and remanded because the evidence was factually insufficient to support the finding of the date of inception of the marriage.

. Prior to the 1989 amendment, section 1.91 of the Texas Family Code, entitled "Proof of Certain Informal Marriages” read:
(a) In any judicial, administrative, or other proceeding, the marriage of a man and woman may be proved by evidence that:
[[Image here]]
(2) they agreed to be married, and after the agreement they lived together in this state as husband and wife and they represented to others that they were married.
(b) In any proceeding in which a marriage is to be proved under Subsection (a)(2) of this section, the agreement of the parties to marry may be inferred if it is proved that they lived together as husband and wife and represented to others that they were married.
Act of May 14, 1969, 61st Leg., R.S., ch. 888, § 1, 1969 Tex.Gen.Laws 2707, 2717, amended by Act of June 14, 1989, 71st Leg., R.S., ch. 369, § 9, 1989 Tex.Gen.Laws 1458, 1459. (emphasis added).
The section was amended in 1989 to read:
(a) In any judicial, administrative, or other proceeding, the marriage of a man and a woman may be proved by evidence that:
[[Image here]]
(2) they agreed to be married, and after the agreement they lived together in this state as husband and wife and they represented to others that they were married.
(b) A proceeding in which a marriage is to be proved under this section must be commenced not later than one year after the date on which the relationship ended or not later than one year after September 1, 1989, whichever is later.
Tex.Fam.Code Ann. § 1.91 (Vernon 1993).