Beck v. Beck, 6 Div. 573
Decision Date | 25 February 1971 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 573 |
Parties | James S. P. BECK, Jr., et al. as Individuals and as Co-Executors etc. v. Alton Smith BECK. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
George W. Nichols, Jr., Tuscaloosa, for appellants.
Hubbard & Waldrop, Tuscaloosa, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a final decree of the Circuit Court of Tuscaloosa County in Equity, rendered in a declaratory judgment proceeding, which decree declared, among other declarations, that appellee, to whom we will sometimes hereinafter refer as Mrs. Alton Smith Beck, was the common-law wife of Dr. James S. P. Beck, deceased, from August 9, 1966, until September 9, 1966, the day of Dr. Beck's death.
The only question for our determination is the correctness of the declaration that Mrs. Alton Smith Beck was the common-law wife of Dr. Beck at the time of his death on September 9, 1966.
The bill for declaratory judgment was filed by the two children of Dr. Beck, as individuals and as co-executors of Dr. Beck's estate, against Mrs. Alton Smith Beck.
The complainants below are the appellants here. In brief filed in this court on behalf of appellee, Mrs. Alton Smith Beck, it is conceded that the division of appellants' brief headed 'Statement of Case' is substantially correct, so we will quote pertinent parts of that division of appellants' brief:
'That the appellee was living in Dr. Beck's home, claiming to be his widow, and claiming certain items of personal property, including a Cadillac automobile, as her own property.
Following a hearing, at which the witnesses testified orally, the trial court rendered a final decree, which reads as follows:
'This cause coming on to be heard, came the parties in their own and proper persons and by their attorneys and the Court proceeds to hear the evidence ore tenus in open court and the cause having been sumitted for final decree upon the pleadings and evidence presented in open court makes the following findings of fact, conclusions of law and decree.
'The Court finds that the Circuit Court of Tuscaloosa County, Alabama, was without jurisdiction to entertain or hear the joint petition filed by the Respondent and the said James S. P. Beck, Sr., to set aside the decree of divorce dissolving the bonds of matrimony between them, which said decree was made and entered on the 4th day of November, 1965, and concludes that by reason of the lapse of time the Circuit Court of Tuscaloosa County, Alabama, had lost jurisdiction over said cause and was without power to make or enter the order dated the 9th day of August, 1966, purporting to set aside the said final decree of divorce entered on November 4, 1965, between Respondent and the said James S. P. Beck, Sr.
'The Court further finds that the decree of divorce made and entered on the 4th day of November, 1965, was not void and that the allegations of the Complainant in said cause were sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction and authorize the granting of the said final decree of divorce made and entered on the 4th day of November, 1965.
'The Court further finds that based on the evidence presented in this cause that Ajems S. P. Beck, Sr., had the mental capacity to enter into a common law marriage and that a commn law marriage between James S. P. Beck, Sr., and the Respondent Alton S. Smith Beck came into existence to (sic), to-wit, August 9th, 1966, on or about the time the order was made and entered purporting to set aside the final decree of divorce of James S. P. Beck, Sr., and Alston S. Smith Beck; that said common law marriage existed from said time until the death of James S. P. Beck, Sr., on September 9th, 1966, and that the Repondent Alton S. Smith Beck was the widow of James S. P. Beck, Sr., at the time of his death.
'The Court further finds that based on the evidence presented in this cause the said James S. P. Beck, Sr., did not have sexual intercourse with the Respondent and that no intercourse took place between the Respondent and James S. P. Beck, Sr., between the 9th day of August, 1966, and the 9th day of September, 1966, and that the status of common law marriage existed between James S. P. Beck, Sr., and the Respondent during said time without sexual intercourse having taken place.
'The Court finds as a fact that at the time the said James S. P. Beck, Sr., purported to enter into a contract creating a joint checking account in the First National Bank of Tuskaloosa with Respondent in the amount of approximately Eight Thousand Four Hundred and No/100 ($8,400.00) Dollars, that the said James S. P. Beck, Sr., lacked the mental capacity to comprehend the nature and consequences of his said action and that he lacked the mental capacity to make such contract, and the Court finds that said contract was void and of no effect and finds that the funds so transferred to said joint account are properly assets of the estates (sic) of the said James S. P. Beck, Sr., deceased.
'IT IS FURTHER CONSIDERED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that a common law marriage relationship existed between the Respondent and James S. P. Beck, Sr., and the Respondent is found by the Court to be the lawful widow of James S. P. Beck, Sr., by virtue of said common law marriage relationship.
'IT IS FURTHER CONSIDERED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that the funds transferred to the joint account of Respondent and the said James S. P. Beck, Sr., in the First National Bank of Tuskaloosa on or about the 7th day of September, 1966, be, and the same are hereby declared to be the property of the estate of the said James S. P. Beck, Sr., deceased.
'IT IS FURTHER CONSIDERED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that the Cadillac automobile in the possession of the Respondent at the time of the death of the said James S. P. Beck, Sr., be and the same is hereby declared to be the property of the estate of James S. P. Beck, Sr., deceased.
'IT IS FURTHER CONSIDERED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that the costs of court in this proceeding be and the same are hereby taxed one-half against the Complainants and one-half against the Respondent with...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gordon v. Gordon
...similar characteristics to determine whether parties have established a cohabitation relationship. For example, in Beck v. Beck, 286 Ala. 692, 246 So.2d 420 (1971), the Alabama Supreme Court We think cohabitation as that word is used in our cases encompasses many factors which are necessari......
-
Collier v. City of Milford
...v. Cluxton, supra. There must, however, be evidenced a present, mutual, intention to marry. Piel v. Brown, supra; Beck v. Beck, 286 Ala. 692, 697, 246 So.2d 420 (1971); Howell v. Littlefield, 211 S.C. 462, 465, 46 S.E.2d 47 (1947). An "[i]llicit relationship, though accompanied by cohabitat......
-
Piel v. Brown
...377 (1974). (A) present agreement, a mutual understanding to presently enter into the marriage relationship, . . . Beck v. Beck, 286 Ala. 692, 697, 246 So.2d 420, 425 (1971). (A)n actual and mutual agreement to enter into a matrimonial relation, . . . Brown v. Brown, 276 Ala. 153, 155, 159 ......
-
Moore v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.
...do not have the capacity to marry if they are of unsound mind, are already married, or are underage. See, e.g., Beck v. Beck, 286 Ala. 692, 246 So.2d 420, 425 (1971) (unsound mind); Steele v. Steele, 522 So.2d 269, 270 (Ala.1988) (already married); Adams v. Boan, 559 So.2d 1084, 1086–87 (Al......