Etheridge v. Yeager
Decision Date | 08 February 1985 |
Citation | 465 So.2d 378 |
Parties | Louise ETHERIDGE v. Benjamin White YEAGER, et al. 83-788. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Jack W. Meigs of Hellums & Meigs, Centreville, for appellant.
Curtis W. Gordon, Jr. and Robert C. Sutton, Birmingham, for appellees.
Following an ore tenus hearing, the Circuit Court of Bibb County entered a judgment holding that Louise Etheridge was not the common law wife of Joe Yeager, and setting aside letters of administration theretofore granted to her by the Probate Court of Bibb County. Etheridge appealed from that judgment. We affirm.
Ms. Etheridge, claiming to be the widow, petitioned the Bibb County Probate Court for letters of administration on the estate of Joe Yeager. That court granted the letters. Shortly thereafter, however, the brother and sisters of Joe Yeager filed a contest of her letters and petitioned for the removal of the administration to Bibb Circuit Court. That petition was granted, and an ore tenus nonjury hearing ensued. After the entry of the final order, Ms. Etheridge moved for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. That motion was denied. She then appealed, raising two issues:
(1) Whether the trial court was plainly and palpably wrong in holding that Louise Etheridge and Joe Yeager were not husband and wife under common law; and
(2) Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion for a new trial.
A summary of the evidence will suffice to disclose its divided nature.
On the one hand, Ms. Etheridge's evidence was that she began living with Yeager after her (first) husband had died and Yeager had been divorced from his second wife. They lived together continuously from 1970 until Yeager's death in 1982. Ms. Etheridge produced mail she had received as Mrs. Joe Yeager. Three neighbors testified that they thought Joe and Louise were married, because Joe had referred to Louise as his wife, and that their general reputation in the community was that of husband and wife. Evidence was produced that Louise was listed as part of the household on Yeager's application for food stamps. Yeager's nephew and Louise's two daughters testified that they thought Louise and Joe were married.
The contestants' evidence showed, however, that Louise kept a bank account in the name of Etheridge, and that in 1982 she had registered to vote under the name of Etheridge. Each of the contestants testified that when they asked Joe if he and Louise were married he replied that he was not going to marry anyone. There was some evidence that Joe had told Louise that he did not want her to sign her name as "Yeager." Louise herself testified to her belief that they were married because, she said, "I lived with him long enough." Joe Yeager's application for food stamps did not list Louise under the box marked "spouse" provided in the form, but in the category of "member of household." The food stamp representative testified that Yeager had listed, as members of his household, himself and Annie J. Etheridge, and that he had stated that "he and Ms. Etheridge lived together as man and wife." This representative later explained that her testimony was based upon her summation of their interview, and that she could not state that those were his exact words.
There have been a number of expressions from this Court setting forth the requirements for a common law marriage. In Skipworth v. Skipworth, 360 So.2d 975, 976 (Ala.1978), this Court stated:
Piel v. Brown, 361 So.2d 90, 94-95 (Ala.1978), also explores the requirements:
In Goodman v. McMillan, 258 Ala. 125 at 130, 61 So.2d 55 at 59 (1952), this Court repeated the principle that:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Burden v. Shinseki
...Furthermore, Alabama requires “clear and convincing proof” to establish the validity of a common law marriage. Etheridge v. Yeager, 465 So.2d 378, 380 (Ala.1985). On appeal, both Mrs. Burden and Mrs. Coleman acknowledge that the VA must look to Alabama law in determining the existence of a ......
-
Collier v. City of Milford
...the trier of fact "will not be disturbed unless palpably wrong...." Downs v. Newman, 500 So.2d 1062, 1063 (Ala.1986); Etheridge v. Yeager, 465 So.2d 378, 380-81 (Ala.1985); Skipworth v. Skipworth, 360 So.2d 975, 977 (Ala.1978); King v. King, 269 Ala. 468, 114 So.2d 145, 148 (1959); Baker v.......
-
D.W. v. J.W.B.
...however, it was for the probate court, who viewed the witnesses, to determine which testimony was to be believed. See Etheridge v. Yeager, 465 So.2d 378 (Ala.1985). Moreover, some of the father's own testimony, including an admission from the father that he and the mother had not had a mutu......
-
Burden v. Shinseki, 2012-7096
...1990). Furthermore, Alabama requires "clear and convincing proof" to establish the validity of a common law marriage. Etheridge v. Yeager, 465 So. 2d 378, 380 (Ala. 1985). On appeal, both Mrs. Burden and Mrs. Coleman acknowledge that the VA must look to Alabama law in determining the existe......