On July 24, 2019, the South Carolina Supreme Court finally (and only prospectively) abolished common-law marriage in South Carolina. See South Carolina Supreme Court finally (and only prospectively) abolishes common-law marriage–and makes it harder to establish retroactive common-law marriages
Yesterday I litigated the issue of common law marriage–in a municipal court eviction proceeding no less. It’s a task I consider most unpleasant and that hearing did nothing to change my opinion. My client had tried to evict his ex-girlfriend/baby mama (the baby’s now 20 years old) and–she claimed–common-law wife from a house he owned. The judge decided that, because the parties had lived together for fifteen years and had a child together, they were common-law married, and thus the residence was marital property. Accordingly she would not evict the woman. He hired me and I asked the judge to reconsider. After I showed that when this woman claimed the common-law marriage began my client was still married to another woman the judge reversed her decision and ordered ex-girlfriend/baby mama to vacate the premises, at which point she (the other woman, not the judge) engaged in histrionics worthy of the Jerry Springer show. Entertaining but hardly dignified–and I like my courtroom time to be dignified.
A quick google search of “how many states still allow common law marriage” yields answers of seven, nine, fifteen (all also listing the District of Columbia). South Carolina is on all three lists, allowing common-law marriage by statute: S.C. Code § 20-1-360: “Nothing contained in this article shall render illegal any marriage contracted without the issuance of a license.” This leads me to question: why won’t South Carolina abolish common-law marriage, especially when the majority of states do without it?
In law school I was taught that the rationale for common-law marriage is that there was a time when the law (i.e., government bureaucracy) did not extend everywhere, so there needed to be a method for folks to get married when they could not get to a government office to obtain a license. This was especially true when the young lady was “in the family way”–a circumstance that, contrary to conservative opinion, our modern era did not devise, though we may be the first era to have unmarried folks living and bearing children together without being shamed out of the community.
However, if common-law marriage was justified in a frontier age, South Carolina’s frontier was settled two centuries ago. Myriad United States have turned from wilderness to settled during this period and have seen fit to abolish common-law marriage but not South Carolina, which remains, along with Rhode Island, the only original colonies to still allow common-law marriage (Georgia allows it if contracted before January 1, 1997 and New Hampshire allows it for inheritance purposes only).
If common-law marriage was merely archaic, it would be tolerable. However, even when a couple agrees they are common-law married it causes future problems when they attempt a common-law divorce (i.e., separate without getting divorced) and then enter into subsequent ceremonial marriages that end up being voidable as bigamous. It’s a greater problem when the parties cannot agree if they are common-law married, engendering more perjury than any other area of family law practice: the “we’re common-law married” wife who filed separate tax returns for the past ten years; the “we just live together” boyfriend/baby daddy who listed girlfriend/baby mama as “wife” on his employer provided health insurance (in sixteen years doing family law I have yet to see or hear of a man being the one claiming common-law marriage). While it might theoretically be possible to be common-law married without committing perjury on some government or employment form, in practice I have yet to see a disputed case of common-law marriage in which the party claiming common-law marriage has not falsely sworn being single on at least one occasion. As a result court cases resolving the issue of whether a couple was married at common-law do not become a “quest for the truth” but instead devolve into determining who is the less convincing liar. Hardly dignifying, and explaining my distaste for such cases.
Allowing common-law marriage merely encourages men to be cads and women to be naive. Men who want to keep their girlfriends happy can tell them that “we don’t need a piece of paper” and lead their girlfriends to believe they are married at common-law, only to change their position when they break up and the girlfriend/wife wants property division and alimony. The law supports these naive women when they end up so-duped if the court believes their claims of common-law marriages and throws them to the mercies when the court doesn’t. This creates all kinds of injustice.
It’s not as though the process of ceremonial marriage is that difficult. When I wanted to marry my then-girlfriend in 1989, it took a trip to city hall (in South Carolina it would take a trip to the county Probate Court), a blood test (for syphilis, not for AIDS–how odd) and a Rabbi. As my young daughter would say, “easy, peasy lemon squeezy.” The nice thing about such formality is that there are no surprises years down the road, with one of us thinking we are married and the other thinking we are merely living together. Given that marriage is one of the most significant and solemn things most of us will contract in our life, shouldn’t the law require that we not enter this contract inadvertently or accidently?
Common-law marriage was made for hillbillies, and the folks who claim to contract it in the twenty-first century tend to live the chaotic lives of hillbillies, even if they live in suburban homes and have decent incomes (I am sure there is a advocacy group somewhere that’s going to be peeved at my insulting hillbillies). We shouldn’t encourage such chaos or allow so much perjury to be suborned. When Joni Mitchell sang “We don’t need no piece of paper from the City Hall keepin’ us tied and true” she was praising shaking-up, not encouraging common-law marriage. If people want to be married, they should get that damn piece of paper: South Carolina needs to abolish the archaic practice of common-law marriage.
Unlike the jurisdiction where you were married, no blood test is required for marriage in South Carolina.
I live in Charleston and I just wanted to tell you I have enjoyed reading your thought-provoking blog posts!
I practice family law in California, where common-law marriage was abolished in 1895. You would not believe the number of times I have been told by both women and men with great earnestness that they were common law married in California. I had to break it to one gentleman that, in fact, he was NOT married and was not entitled to spousal support and half of the property despite living with his girlfriend for 30+ years. He was very upset. I’m still baffled at how many people assume that 1) common law marriage is allowed in California, and 2) allowing common law marriage would be a good thing. I enjoyed reading your blog entry and I hope that the current bill in the South Carolina Legislature to eliminate common law marriage passes and is made law.
Mr. Gregory, it does not matter whether you have a common law marriage or a licensed marriage in the state of S.C.. It depends on who the presiding judge is on your case how the decision of marriage is decided. In my case a signed and notarized ducument stating “The undersigned agree that, for all legal purposes, they are married and accept the rights, priveleges, and responsibilities which are accorded with this declaration” was submitted with other documentation proving clear and convincing evidence that a common law marriage between my husband and I exhisted. The judge ruled that I had failed to prove “perponderance” and that there was not a common law marriage. In the Charleston County Family Court it depends on who your counselor is and who the presiding judge is to get a ruling in your favor no matter what the evidence is. You can read all UNPUBS and posted opinions on this particular judge who has been found “UNQUALIFIED” and you will find that the rulings on cases with simular matters that were appealed the judge flip flopped on each case and was favorable for certain cases with certain attorneys. U CANNOT GET A FAIR HEARING WITH THESE GOINGS ON. No one can have any faith in the South Carolina Judicial System which is a CRYING SHAME!
Mr Gregory,
Common law marriage is a good thing. Some people may not want to enter into a marriage with the state as a third party.
The problem is that the state becomes a third party if the marriage doesn’t work out. There is no “common law divorce” in which the parties stop living together and magically become divorced. Further if the parties attempt a “common law divorce,” in which the “common law married” couple simply stops living together and considers themselves divorced, the law still sees them as married, which causes problems for heirs and subsequent spouses.
As long as the state involves itself in divorces, we need the state involved in marriages.
Even though SC has finally updated this law I am currently in this situation but not in a bad way. I appreciate your time and effort in writing this very informative post. I agree with your points of view on the topic and could see how it could be a rather unpleasant situation for you to deal with. Thanks for giving us a great example of a legal proceeding. I’ve filed taxes as married so I guess she has me by the balls if my dad who is almost 70 passes away anytime soon. On the flip side maybe I can squeeze some of her inheritance out of her lol. Thanks again.
Mr. Gregory,
I am and have been fighting a claim of common law from an ex. It really gets me so angry that this exists and I must defend my rights. She is only doing it for money since she will not hold down a job. No kids. No ring ever bought. Everything was in my name or her name separate. Only her family has been her witnesses. Mine have been community friends and such since my family lives 5 states away. They are not able to show up for a hearing, but have given sworn affidavits. Never filed joint taxes. Never carried her on my jobs health insurance. But im still fighting it. She spent 7 months in mental institutions for depression and other things. But it was after we broke up. Its very very frightening to know there is a possibility I may have to pay her alimony if a judge rules in her favor. I can discredit more than half her complaint and sworn affidavit with legal documents.
Its absolutely preposterous that a woman can claim these things against someone and I have to spend thousands of dollars in lawyer fees to defend myself family and my future. I only wish it would be over. So I may get along with my life and family. Since I am legally married since the break up was 5 years ago.
Any guidence would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
Mr. Forman, could you provide an update on the current status of common-law marriage in South Carolina? I’ve read a few places that there are no new common-law marriages since 2011.
Amazing what some people will try to claim in order to get their cash and prizes when a relationship fails.