Brierton v. Burris (In re Whitehouse)
| Decision Date | 08 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 117,879 |
| Citation | 479 P.3d 230 |
| Parties | In the MATTER OF the ESTATE OF George Thomas WHITEHOUSE, Deceased: Karen Brierton, Appellant, v. Tawannah Burris, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma |
Mark B. Houts, HOUTS LAW, PLLC, Edmond, Oklahoma, for Appellant
Michael W. Boutot, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Appellee
OPINION BY STACIE L. HIXON, JUDGE:
¶1 Karen Brierton (Brierton) appeals an order appointing Tawannah Burris (Burris) the personal administrator of the estate of Brierton's brother, George Thomas Whitehouse (Whitehouse), and finding a common law marriage existed between Whitehouse and Burris. On review, we affirm the trial court's May 11, 2019 Order of Appointment of Personal Representative and Finding of Common Law Marriage.
BACKGROUND
¶2 Whitehouse died in a motorcycle accident in August 2018. Burris contended she was Whitehouse's common law wife and petitioned for Letters of Administration. Whitehouse's sister, Brierton, objected to the appointment.
The trial court conducted a non-jury trial on November 20 and December 31, 2018, to determine whether Burris was Whitehouse's common law spouse and entitled to appointment as his personal administrator.
¶3 Burris met and began dating Whitehouse in 2002. Whitehouse moved into Burris' home in 2003, and resided with Burris until his death, with the exception of a few months in 2009. In 2014, Burris' house burned. She testified that she and Whitehouse were reduced to living in a recreational vehicle while the house was rebuilt. Burris told Whitehouse she understood if he wanted to leave. She testified that Whitehouse told her that to do so, they would have to get divorced because they were married, in sickness and in health, for better or worse, richer or poorer, until death parted them.
¶4 Burris contended she and Whitehouse did things as a married couple from that day. She and Whitehouse filed joint tax returns as a married couple thereafter until his death. In 2015, Burris added Whitehouse as the beneficiary to her retirement account, identifying him as her spouse. Whitehouse signed the required form. Friends of Whitehouse testified they were aware he filed taxes jointly with Burris and was her retirement beneficiary.
¶5 Burris and Whitehouse maintained a joint checking account and owned multiple vehicles together. Their automobile insurance application, though signed only by Burris, identified them as husband and wife. Whitehouse was identified as Burris' husband on their cell phone plan. He was also listed as Burris' husband on a medical intake form when he took Burris to the emergency room in 2018. Burris paid for Whitehouse's funeral and laid him to rest in a joint burial plot that they will share.
¶6 Burris appeared to be a significant source of financial support for Whitehouse. Brierton acknowledged that her brother's estate was largely comprised of a potential claim arising from the motorcycle accident. She acknowledged her interest in contesting Burris' appointment was "possibly" the large lawsuit waiting after the appointment.
¶7 To contest Burris' status, Brierton presented evidence of Whitehouse's reputation as a "tomcat" or womanizer. He did not wear a wedding ring and his Facebook status reflected he was single. Multiple women testified to a sexual relationship with Whitehouse and claimed that he told them Burris was only a roommate. These women,1 as well as Whitehouse's female friends and his siblings, contended he and Burris did not share a bedroom and did not have a marital or sexual relationship.
¶8 Burris contended she and Whitehouse resided together as husband and wife. Other witnesses admitted that Burris and Whitehouse sometimes slept in the same room. However, Burris was diagnosed with cancer
in late 2014, and was still undergoing chemotherapy at the time of Whitehouse's death. Witnesses, including Burris, testified her illness dampened their intimacy, and that Whitehouse had mentioned he sought the company of other women as a result. Most of Whitehouse's paramours testified to being intimate with Whitehouse before 2014, or from 2016 through the time of his death.2 Burris presented evidence she had been intimate with Whitehouse up to a week before his death. While she denied knowing he was involved with any particular woman, her communications to Whitehouse suggested she was aware and frustrated by his activities.
¶9 Whitehouse's best friend and siblings also testified Burris was Whitehouse's roommate and/or that he did not consider Burris his wife. Brierton presented evidence that Burris did not identify herself as Whitehouse's wife on hospital paperwork after the accident, or on her application for his death certificate and acknowledged Whitehouse's sister was entitled to make Whitehouse's end of life decisions. Burris did not identify herself as Whitehouse's wife in his obituary, though she did identify herself as "of the home."
¶10 Burris testified she did not insert herself into Whitehouse's end of life decisions because she was not sure of her legal rights as common law spouse and claimed that a surgeon told her that Whitehouse' sister had the right to direct his care. She contended she told one nurse at the hospital that Whitehouse was her husband. Though Whitehouse's best friend denied the marital relationship, she admitted she also told a nurse at the hospital that Burris was Whitehouse's wife.
¶11 Burris presented testimony of witnesses indicating that Whitehouse and Burris acted like a couple. Whitehouse's cousin also testified she had learned from Whitehouse that he had become Burris' retirement beneficiary and that Whitehouse had joked in relation that Burris would have to divorce him to keep him from that money. Burris' cousin testified she had introduced Whitehouse as Burris' husband at a family gathering to no objection, and considered them husband and wife.
¶12 Weighing conflicting evidence of the relationship between Burris and Whitehouse, the trial court found Burris proved by clear and convincing evidence that she was Whitehouse's common law wife. The court determined Burris had demonstrated an actual agreement to be husband and wife, that the relationship was permanent, and that Whitehouse and Burris cohabitated as husband and wife from 2014 until his death. The trial court found it undisputed that Whitehouse was not in an exclusive relationship with Burris, but declined to find that his promiscuity cancelled a common law marriage. The trial court noted that it was arguable that Burris and Whitehouse did not hold themselves out as married "in such a manner that was readily discernible to the public" and that Whitehouse was "downright deceptive to virtually everyone" about his marriage. However, the trial court ultimately determined that there was ample credible testimony that Burris and Whitehouse held themselves out as husband and wife to friends and in public to support its finding of common law marriage.
¶13 By Order of March 11, 2018, the court found Burris was Whitehouse's wife and sole heir and appointed her administrator of his estate.
¶14 Brierton appeals.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶15 "On appellate review, a trial court's determination of the existence of a common law marriage will not be disturbed if it is not clearly against the weight of evidence." Standefer v. Standefer , 2001 OK 37, ¶ 11, 26 P.3d 104 (quoting Mueggenborg v. Walling , 1992 OK 121, ¶ 5, 836 P.2d 112 ). "Because the trial court is in the best position to evaluate the demeanor of the witnesses and to gauge the credibility of the evidence, we will defer to the trial court as to the conclusions it reaches concerning those witnesses and that evidence." Stephens Production Co., a division of SF Holding Corp. v. Larsen , 2017 OK 36, ¶ 12, 394 P.3d 1262 (citing Mueggenborg , 1992 OK 121, ¶ 7, 836 P.2d 112 ).
ANALYSIS
¶16 Brierton contends the trial court's findings of fact negate a finding of common law marriage because the trial court did not find evidence of all five elements she contends must be established to support common law marriage. Brierton also contends the trial court erred by failing to hold Burris was estopped3 from claiming common law marriage, and that the Oklahoma Legislature has previously abrogated common law marriage.4
a. Applicable law
¶17 "A common law marriage is formed when ‘the minds of the parties meet in consent at the same time.’ " Standefer , 2001 OK 37, at ¶ 11, 26 P.3d 104 (quoting Reaves v. Reaves , 1905 OK 32, 15 Okla. 240, 82 P. 490 ). Earlier cases emphasized specific elements tending to prove the existence of common law marriage. These elements are: (1) an actual and mutual agreement between the spouses to be husband and wife; (2) a permanent relationship; (3) an exclusive relationship; (4) proved by cohabitation as man and wife; (5) and the parties to the marriage must hold themselves out publicly as husband and wife. Estate of Stinchcomb , 1983 OK 120, ¶ 10, 674 P.2d 26.
¶18 Standefer clarified that elements two through five are evidence of the required mutual agreement or consent to enter into the marital relationship. The Court explained that, "[s]ome evidence of consent to enter into a common law marriage are cohabitation, actions consistent with the relationship of spouses, recognition by the community of the marital relationship, and declarations by the parties." Id . The party seeking to establish a common-law spousal relationship has the burden to demonstrate the existence of the marriage by clear and convincing evidence. Standefer , 2001 OK 37, ¶ 11, 26 P.3d 104.
¶19 Contrary to Standefer , Brierton contends that elements two through five are not merely evidence of the existence of a mutual agreement to marry. She asserts that Burris was required to show all five elements and that a failure of proof on any element was fatal to Burris' claim. Brierton concludes the trial court found only the elements of actual agreement, a permanent...
To continue reading
Request your trial