Matter of Mott v. Duncan Petroleum Trans., 390 N.E.2d 290 (N.Y. 1979)

A common-law marriage validly contracted in another state will be recognized in New York, even if New York does not itself recognize common-law marriages; the validity of the marriage is determined by the law of the state where the marriage purportedly occurred.

Summary

Mary Mott sought worker’s compensation death benefits as the common-law widow of John Mott. The Workers’ Compensation Board denied the claim, finding no legal marriage. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Board applied an incorrect legal standard. Although New York does not recognize common-law marriage, it recognizes such marriages validly contracted in other states. The Board erred by assuming New York only recognizes marriages previously declared valid in another state, and by assuming a mere visit to Georgia could not establish a valid marriage there. The case was remanded for the Board to determine if a common-law marriage was established under Georgia law, considering the couple’s intent and conduct in both Georgia and New York.

Facts

Mary and John Mott lived together in New York from 1964 until John’s death in 1973. They presented themselves as husband and wife and jointly conducted legal and financial matters. They were never formally married. Mary claimed a common-law marriage based on visits to Georgia, where she alleged they lived as husband and wife, intending to establish a permanent residence and business. These plans never materialized.

Procedural History

The Workers’ Compensation Board denied Mary Mott’s claim for death benefits, concluding no valid marriage existed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s decision, finding substantial evidence to support it. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and remitted the matter back to the Appellate Division with directions to remand for further proceedings before the Worker’s Compensation Board.

Issue(s)

Whether the Workers’ Compensation Board erred in determining Mary and John Mott’s marital status by failing to properly apply Georgia law regarding common-law marriage.

Holding

Yes, because the Workers’ Compensation Board applied an incorrect legal standard in determining whether a valid common-law marriage existed under Georgia law, including an overly restrictive view of when an out-of-state marriage is recognized in New York and the circumstances under which a common-law marriage can be formed in Georgia.

Court’s Reasoning

The court emphasized that while the Workers’ Compensation Board determines factual matters, it must apply the correct legal standard. New York recognizes common-law marriages validly contracted in other states, even though it does not permit them within the state. The validity of an out-of-state marriage is determined by the law of the state where the marriage occurred. The court stated, “It has long been settled law that although New York does not itself recognize common-law marriages… a common-law marriage contracted in a sister State will be recognized as valid here if it is valid where contracted.”

Under Georgia law, a common-law marriage requires that the parties are able to contract, a contract of marriage was made, and the marriage was consummated according to law. Intent to marry in Georgia can be shown through circumstantial evidence, such as living together as husband and wife and representing themselves as married. The court found the Board’s determination was based on an erroneous view of the law. The Board incorrectly assumed New York only recognizes marriages previously declared valid in another state. It also erred in assuming a mere visit to Georgia could not result in a valid marriage. “Given the apparent liberality of the Georgia rule with respect to common-law marriages, this too was error.” Finally, the Board failed to consider the parties’ behavior in New York as evidence of their intent to marry, which is relevant even if secondary to conduct in Georgia. The case was remanded to the Board to redetermine the factual question of whether the Motts effected a common-law marriage in Georgia based on the correct legal standards.