Common Law Marriage: Overview of Umana v. Rodriguez-Ramos

In the case of Umana v. Rodriguez-Ramos, 2021 Tex. App. LEXIS 4928, decided on June 21, 2021, by the Texas Court of Appeals in Dallas, a complex legal battle unfolded involving claims of common-law marriage in Texas, property ownership, and legal jurisdiction.

Background of the Case

The dispute began when W (the wife) sued H (the husband) for divorce, asserting that they were in a common-law marriage starting in June 2016. W also sought to quiet title to a residence in Dallas. Requesting the court to recognize her as a part-owner of the property and to divide it accordingly.

Legal Challenges and Proceedings

H responded by filing a plea to the jurisdiction and a motion to dismiss, arguing that W lacked standing to bring the suit. He contended that no common-law marriage could exist as he was still legally married to another individual. H also sought to expunge a lis pendens that W had placed on the Dallas residence.

W countered with an affidavit stating she had sold property in Guatemala. Which provided $37,000 to her brother to buy the Dallas residence, which she claimed was intended to be hers. The property was eventually foreclosed, and H purchased it at the foreclosure sale while both were residing there. W then amended her pleadings to include claims of unjust enrichment and quantum meruit, asserting that they had entered into a joint venture to purchase the residence.

The Court's Decision

The court held an evidentiary hearing to determine the validity of the common-law marriage claim. Despite W's conflicting testimony about her marital status, the court concluded that W had not established a prima facie case of a common-law marriage. Consequently, the plea to the jurisdiction was granted, and W’s suit was dismissed in its entirety.

Court of Appeals Review

On appeal, W challenged the use of a plea to the jurisdiction to address her common-law marriage claim. Arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by holding an evidentiary hearing on the merits of that claim. The Court of Appeals noted that such pleas can be resolved either on the pleadings or through an evidentiary hearing if jurisdictional facts are disputed. The court found that the trial court did not err in dismissing W’s Family Code claim based on the absence of a common-law marriage due to H’s existing marriage.

However, the appellate court held that the trial court erred in dismissing W’s alternative claims regarding the ownership and division of the Dallas residence. Noting that H had not challenged these claims in his plea to the jurisdiction. Thus, these claims were remanded for further proceedings.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is common law marriage?

Common law marriage, also known as informal marriage or non-ceremonial marriage. It’s a legal recognition that a couple is married despite not having obtained a marriage license or having their marriage solemnized through a formal ceremony. This status is based on the couple presenting themselves as married to the public and meeting certain criteria set by law.

What states have common-law marriage?

As of 2024, only a few U.S. states recognize new common-law marriages. These states include Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah. It's important to note that each state has specific requirements and stipulations for such unions to be considered legal.

What is required for common law marriage in Texas?

In Texas, for a common law marriage to be recognized, three key elements must be satisfied. 1st both parties must agree to be married. 2nd is, to live together as a married couple, and 3rd is to represent others that they are married. This informal marriage can then be formalized through a declaration filed with the county clerk.

Conclusion

The appellate court noted the use of a plea to the jurisdiction in this case as an effective legal strategy. Particularly when there is conclusive evidence that precludes a common-law marriage. This method can streamline the resolution of clear-cut legal issues. However, it may not be suitable in more fact-intensive disputes involving elements of common-law marriage that require detailed examination.