Eaton v. Johnston
Decision Date | 27 April 1984 |
Docket Number | No. 55271,55271 |
Citation | 681 P.2d 606,235 Kan. 323 |
Parties | Jodie E. EATON, formerly Jodie E. Johnston, Appellee, v. Billie Wayne JOHNSTON, Appellant. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The three elements of common law marriage are: (1) capacity of the parties to marry; (2) present marriage agreement between the parties; and (3) a holding out of each other as husband and wife to the public.
2. Where a common law marriage is alleged but judicially held not to exist, the trial court, in the exercise of its inherent power to do equity, is authorized to make an equitable division of the property jointly accumulated by the parties or acquired by either with the intent that each should have an interest therein.
Lester A. Holloway, Wichita, was on the brief, for appellant.
Stephen B. Plummer, of Rumsey, Richey & Plummer, Wichita, argued the cause and was on the brief, for appellee.
This is an action in which defendant Billie Wayne Johnston has appealed from the district court's determination that a common law marriage between defendant and plaintiff Jodie E. Johnston (now Eaton) did not exist and the court's refusal to consider a division of property. The Court of Appeals heard the appeal and affirmed the district court's judgment as to the nonexistence of a common law marriage but reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings relative to division of property. Eaton v. Johnston, 9 Kan.App.2d 63, 672 P.2d 10 (1983). The matter is before this court on petition for review granted to the plaintiff. 234 Kan. --- (January 20, 1984).
We adopt the statement of facts contained in the Court of Appeals opinion as follows:
9 Kan.App.2d at 63-64, 672 P.2d 10.
The first issue before us is whether there was substantial competent evidence to support the district court's finding there was no common law marriage between the parties.
We believe the Court of Appeals adequately disposed of this issue and adopt the following portion of the intermediate appellate court's opinion:
9 Kan.App.2d at 64-65, 672 P.2d 10.
The next matter to be determined is plaintiff's motion for summary disposition on the issue relative to property division.
Supreme Court Rule 7.041 (232 Kan. cxvii) permits summary disposition of an appeal:
Plaintiff contends Perrenoud v. Perrenoud, 206 Kan. 559, 480 P.2d 749 (1971), is dispositive of the issue of whether a district court, having found no common law marriage to have existed, may order an equitable division of the property accumulated during the period of cohabitation.
We do not agree. Perrenoud involved a situation where a divorce was granted in California with the plaintiff husband being awarded custody of the minor children who were residing in California with him except when his ex-wife had them for holidays in Kansas. At the end of one summer vacation the wife refused to return the children to California. The husband sought to enforce the California custody order in Johnson County, Kansas, by habeas corpus proceedings. The wife filed for a divorce action in Wyandotte County, Kansas. Perrenoud is clearly not a prior controlling appellate decision on the issue before us and the motion for summary disposition is, accordingly, denied.
We turn now to the final issue which is whether the trial court erred in holding it lacked authority to make an equitable division of the property accumulated by the parties during the post-divorce cohabitation period without benefit of formal or common law marriage.
The Court of Appeals in discussing the issue stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Frazier v. Goudschaal
...was “jointly accumulated by the parties or acquired by either with the intent that each should have an interest therein.” Eaton v. Johnston, 235 Kan. 323, Syl. ¶ 2, 681 P.2d 606 (1984). Although Goudschaal concedes that the largest asset, the residential real estate, was a jointly acquired,......
-
Cresto v. Cresto
...reasons that appellate courts defer to the trial court's factual findings and witness credibility assessments. See Eaton v. Johnston, 235 Kan. 323, 324, 681 P.2d 606 (1984) (because of trial court's advantageous position, appellate court does not retry disputed factual issues nor pass on cr......
-
Goode v. Goode
...equity theories in the division of property acquired through the joint efforts of unmarried cohabitants. See, e.g., Eaton v. Johnston, 235 Kan. 323, 681 P.2d 606 (1984); Pickens v. Pickens, 490 So.2d 872 (Miss.1986). This Court spoke to the presence of equitable principles in the marital co......
-
Budd v. Walker
...and division of the marital assets, and asserted an alternative claim for equitable division of the assets based upon Eaton v. Johnston , 235 Kan. 323, 681 P.2d 606 (1984). Walker testified he believed that if the district court did not find a common-law marriage, it would then follow Eaton......
-
Common Law Marriage: Civil Contract or Carnal Commerce
...A Consideration of the Continued Viability of the Common Law Marriage Doctrine, 29 CUMB. L. REV. 399, 402 (1999). 75. Eaton v. Johnson, 235 Kan. 323, 329, 681 P.2d 606 (1984). 76. Id. 77. 9 Kan.App.2d 63 (1983). 78. Eaton, 235 Kan. at 328. See In re Marriage of Thomas, 16 Kan. App. 2d 518, ......
-
Animal Law in Kansas: What Every Lawyer Should Know
...property that nonmarried cohabitants accumulated while living together in action brought by samesex partner). See also Eaton v. Johnston, 235 Kan. 323, 681 P.2d 606 (1984) (reversing lower court’s ruling in which it refused to consider division of property because a common-law marriage was ......
-
Appellate Decisions
...property division is granted. On remand, district court to re-determine property division utilizing standard in Eaton v. Johnston, 235 Kan. 323 (1984). CONCURRING (Biles, J.): Would hold that KPA governs this case and provides sufficient statutory framework to resolve legal issues advanced ......