Jennings v. Hurt
| Decision Date | 24 April 1990 |
| Citation | 554 N.Y.S.2d 220,160 A.D.2d 576 |
| Parties | Sandra JENNINGS, etc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William McChord HURT, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
A.R. Golub, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant.
M.I. Shelton, New York City, for defendant-respondent.
Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and CARRO, MILONAS, ROSENBERGER and SMITH, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jacqueline Silberman, J.), entered on or about May 17, 1989, which denied plaintiff's motion for leave to amend her complaint, and order of the same court, entered October 4, 1989, which, after a non-jury trial, found that plaintiff was not the common-law wife of defendant, are unanimously affirmed, without costs.
In her amended complaint, plaintiff alleged that she and defendant had entered into a common-law marriage by virtue of having held themselves out as husband and wife in South Carolina from October 31, 1982 to January 10, 1983. After meeting in 1981, the parties began living together in New York City. On October 31, 1982, plaintiff joined defendant in South Carolina where he was filming a movie. When plaintiff became pregnant in 1982, defendant, who was married to another woman, commenced divorce proceedings with the divorce becoming final on December 3, 1982. During that same year, defendant's counsel drafted a financial agreement for the parties.
The relationship between the parties in South Carolina became somewhat volatile but plaintiff alleged that during one of their arguments, defendant told her that "as far as he was concerned, we were married in the eyes of God" and that they had "a spiritual marriage." He also purportedly told her that "we were more married than married people."
Plaintiff's claim that she is defendant's common-law wife is based on these events. Defendant's testimony directly contradicted that of plaintiff.
The record fails to support plaintiff's claim that she is defendant's common-law wife. Notably, plaintiff never mentioned the conversation regarding the "spiritual marriage" at her deposition. The record also reveals that a statement in which plaintiff allegedly signed her name as "Sandra Cronsberg Hurt" was an altered copy in which the name "Hurt" had been inserted. In 1983, defendant filed an affidavit with the Putative Fathers' Registry in New York which acknowledged his paternity of plaintiff's child. Filing this document, designed to ensure the child's legitimacy, would have been unnecessary had the parties in fact been married. Moreover, in 1984, one year after the parties left South Carolina, drafts of a relationship agreement continued to state "whether or not the parties hereafter marry each other". Other documents introduced into evidence listed defendant as single and plaintiff as his "friend" rather than his spouse. Of the many witnesses who testified and of the numerous affidavits offered into evidence, almost all demonstrated that the parties never held themselves out as being married nor were they perceived as husband and wife.
To establish a common-law marriage in South Carolina, the proponent must establish "an intention on the part of both parties to enter into a marriage contract ..." (Ex Parte Blizzard, 185 S.C. 131, 193 S.E. 633). The mutual agreement necessary to create such a marriage ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sears v. Sears
... ... ' " (Matter of Grossman v. Gangel, 192 A.D.2d 396, 398, 596 N.Y.S.2d 53, lv. denied 82 N.Y.2d 659, 605 N.Y.S.2d 5, 625 N.E.2d 590, quoting Jennings v. Hurt, 160 A.D.2d 576, 577-578, 554 N.Y.S.2d 220, lv. denied 77 N.Y.2d 804, 568 N.Y.S.2d 347, 569 N.E.2d 1026). In the instant case, the parties ... ...
-
Callen v. Callen, 26041.
... ... South Carolina does not impose marriage upon a couple merely because they intend to be together forever. See Jennings v. Hurt, 160 A.D.2d 576, 554 N.Y.S.2d 220, 220 (1990) (applying South Carolina law and noting that "[o]ne cannot be married unwittingly or ... ...
-
Will of Garr, Matter of
... ... , under South Carolina law, of the question of whether or not the putative couple expressed an intent to be married as one of fact (see, Jennings v. Hurt, 160 A.D.2d 576, 577-578, 554 N.Y.S.2d 220, appeal dismissed 76 N.Y.2d 870, 560 N.Y.S.2d 984, 561 N.E.2d 884, lv. denied 77 N.Y.2d 804, 568 ... ...
- Islar v. Koehler
-
§ 1.03 Dating Claims
...Id., 369 A.2d at 992. Such a promise was considered against public policy when neither party was married. See Jennings v. Hurt, 160 A.D.2d 576, 554 N.Y.S.2d 220 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990). The female in this case alleged that the male promised to support her if she would give up her career and h......