Huffmaster v. Huffmaster, 1 Div. 319
Decision Date | 23 June 1966 |
Docket Number | 1 Div. 319 |
Parties | Thomas O. HUFFMASTER v. Ruth Juanita HUFFMASTER. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Coley & Coley, Mobile, for appellant.
A. J. Seale, Mobile, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a final decree granting the appellee, the complainant below, a divorce, and decreeing that the respondent therein, the appellant here, pay to the appellee the sum of $60 each two weeks as alimony, payment to continue until the defendant retires, at which time said payments should be reduced to $75 per month.
It is not contended here that the evidence was insufficient in respect to grounds for divorce. The appellant rather rests his case on the contention that there was no marriage and therefore there could be no divorce, much less alimony and solicitor's fees properly awarded. The appellant's case in this respect arises out of the following:
It is admitted that the parties were married in Pascagoula, Mississippi in 1933. Two children were born to them. Subsequently, in 1945, the appellee wife procured a divorce from appellant in Mobile County. The children at that time were 11 and 8 years of age.
Within a few months after this divorce was granted the parties 'went back together'. From the time they resumed marital relations they lived together continuously until the husband left home in 1961. This proceeding followed.
The sole question is whether a common law marriage existed between these parties.
As in all cases, the evidence is not entirely consistent. We must only determine whether there was evidence to support the trial court's finding.
The complainant testified that the parties resumed living together:
The appellant in his testimony takes a little different position. He says they both knew they were not married, but said that he had never told anybody else they were not married. On the contrary, he testified as follows:
'
'
And indeed it would seem so. These parties have lived together continuously since 1933 except for a few months in 1945, up until 1961. They purchased property in their joint names, as husband and wife; the appellant listed the appellee as his wife and beneficiary on insurance policies; they filed joint income tax returns as husband and wife, all subsequent to their first divorce.
Under this set of circumstances we believe the trial court was justified in finding that a common law marriage existed between these parties. It is axiomatic that such a marriage need not be solemnized in any particular ceremony. There must simply be an actual and mutual agreement 'to enter into the matrimonial relationship, permanent and exclusive of all others, after which there was a public recognition of the existence of the common-law marriage.' Murphy v. Jacobs, 249 Ala. 594, 32 So.2d 306; Campbell v. Rice, 245 Ala. 395, 17 So.2d 162; Gilbreath v. Lewis, 242 Ala. 510, 7 So.2d 485. We find ourselves in agreement with the trial court that this test was met in this case. A subsequent asserting 'we knew we were not married' by a party to such an agreement will hardly vitiate a valid marriage where the original understanding was to presently enter into the marriage relationship, followed by a public recognition of the relationship.
We are further persuaded by the rule enunciated in King v. King,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Piel v. Brown
...When consummated, this intention created a common-law marriage which could only be ended by death or divorce. Huffmaster v. Huffmaster, 279 Ala. 594, 188 So.2d 552 (1966). The third element, consummation, has likewise been subject to different language used to convey the same thought. Mr. J......
-
Baber v. Schweiker
...upon by the Appeals Council in denying plaintiff's claim on the basis that no common law relationship existed. In Huffmaster v. Huffmaster, 279 Ala. 594, 188 So.2d 552 (1966), for example, the court recognized a common law marriage where the parties lived together continuously for over twen......
-
Beck v. Beck, 6 Div. 573
...necessary to constitute a valid common-law marriage.--White v. White, 225 Ala. 155, 142 So. 524; Herd v. Herd, Supra; Huffmaster v. Huffmaster, 279 Ala. 594, 188 So.2d 552; Murphy v. Jacobs, 249 Ala. 594, 32 So.2d 306; Gilbreath v. Lewis, 242 Ala. 510, 7 So.2d But to constitute such a marri......
-
Old Republic Insurance Company v. Christian, Civ. No. 3-74-274.
...or Georgia, both of which recognize common law marriages. McClurkin v. McClurkin, 206 Ala. 513, 90 So. 917 (1921); Huffmaster v. Huffmaster, 279 Ala. 594, 188 So.2d 552 (1966); Allen v. State, 60 Ga.App. 248, 3 S.E.2d 780; Campbell v. Allen, 208 Ga. 274, 66 S.E.2d 226 (1951). If the require......