LaFleur v. Pyfer

Decision Date11 January 2021
Docket NumberSupreme Court Case No. 19SC1004
Citation479 P.3d 869
Parties In re the Marriage of Dean LAFLEUR, Petitioner, v. Timothy PYFER, Respondent.
CourtColorado Supreme Court

Attorneys for Petitioner: Antolinez Miller, LLC, Joseph H. Antolinez, Melissa E. Miller, Centennial, Colorado, Azizpour Donnelly, LLC, Katayoun A. Donnelly, Denver, Colorado

Attorneys for Respondent: Law Offices of Rodger C. Daley, Rodger C. Daley, Carrie Vonachen, Dorian Geisler, Denver, Colorado, Reilly LLP, John M. McHugh, Denver, Colorado

Attorneys for Amici Curiae the Colorado LGBT Bar Association; the Colorado Women's Bar Association; Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc.; and the National Center for Lesbian Rights: Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., Shelly L. Skeen, Dallas, Texas, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Mark D. Gibson, Denver, Colorado

En Banc

JUSTICE MÁRQUEZ delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 In 2018, Respondent Timothy Pyfer filed a dissolution of marriage petition, alleging that he had entered into a common law marriage with his same-sex partner, Petitioner Dean LaFleur, when they held a ceremony before family and friends on November 30, 2003, and exchanged vows and rings. LaFleur countered that Pyfer's claim was legally impossible because at the time of the 2003 ceremony, Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriages. In the interim, however, the U.S. Supreme Court held that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry and struck down state laws that excluded same-sex couples from civil marriage as unconstitutional. Obergefell v. Hodges , 576 U.S. 644, 674–75, 135 S.Ct. 2584, 192 L.Ed.2d 609 (2015). We accepted jurisdiction over this case under C.A.R. 50 to address whether, in light of Obergefell , a same-sex couple may prove a common law marriage entered in Colorado before the state recognized same-sex couples’ fundamental right to marry.

¶2 This case is one of three we announce today addressing common law marriage in Colorado. See In re Marriage of Hogsett & Neale , 2021 CO 1, 478 P.3d 713 ; In re Estate of Yudkin , 2021 CO 2, 478 P.3d 713. In Hogsett, we refine the test for establishing a common law marriage first articulated in People v. Lucero , 747 P.2d 660 (Colo. 1987), to reflect changed circumstances since that decision, including the recognition of same-sex marriage. Like this case, Hogsett involves a same-sex relationship predating Obergefell . But this case raises a threshold question that no party contested in Hogsett : whether a same-sex couple may be deemed to have entered into a common law marriage pre- Obergefell .1

¶3 We hold that a court may recognize a common law same-sex marriage entered in Colorado before the state recognized same-sex couples’ fundamental right to marry. We reach this conclusion for two reasons.

¶4 First, as stated, Obergefell struck down state laws that excluded same-sex couples from civil marriage as unconstitutional. 576 U.S. at 674–75, 135 S.Ct. 2584. The general rule is that a statute that is declared unconstitutional is void ab initio; it is inoperative as if it had never been enacted. Consequently, state law restrictions held unconstitutional in Obergefell cannot serve as an impediment to the recognition of a same-sex marriage predating that decision. Indeed, recognition of a same-sex marriage is the remedy for a state's earlier violation of the couple's constitutional rights. Moreover, because Obergefell held that states must allow same-sex couples to enter marriages on the same terms and conditions as different-sex couples, and because Colorado recognizes common law marriages between different-sex couples, it therefore must also recognize such marriages between same-sex couples—including those entered into pre- Obergefell . Of course, to be recognized as a bona fide common law marriage, the relationship must satisfy the updated test we articulate today in Hogsett . ¶ 49 ("[A] common law marriage may be established by the mutual consent or agreement of the couple to enter the legal and social institution of marriage, followed by conduct manifesting that mutual agreement. The key question is whether the parties mutually intended to enter a marital relationship—that is, to share a life together as spouses in a committed, intimate relationship of mutual support and mutual obligation.").

¶5 Second, to the extent Obergefell did not merely recognize an existing fundamental right to marry but announced a new rule of federal law, we conclude that the decision applies retroactively to marriages (including common law marriages) predating that decision. Under the Court's retroactivity jurisprudence in the civil law context, when the Supreme Court "applies a rule of federal law to the parties before it, that rule ... must be given full retroactive effect in all cases still open on direct review and as to all events, regardless of whether such events predate or postdate [the Court's] announcement of the rule." Harper v. Va. Dep't of Tax'n , 509 U.S. 86, 97, 113 S.Ct. 2510, 125 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993). Because the Obergefell Court applied its rule of federal law to the litigants before it, we conclude that the Court's holding in Obergefell that restrictions on same-sex marriages are unconstitutional must be given retroactive effect.

¶6 Accordingly, we agree with the district court that the parties here were not, as a matter of law, barred from entering into a common law marriage in 2003. Applying the refined test announced today in Hogsett for determining whether a couple has entered into a common law marriage, we uphold the district court's determination that the parties entered into a common law marriage. However, we reverse the court's division of property and award of spousal maintenance and remand for further findings in accordance with sections 14-10-113 and - 114, C.R.S. (2020).

I. Facts and Procedural History

¶7 On January 19, 2018, Timothy Pyfer filed a dissolution of marriage petition, alleging that he and his same-sex partner, Dean LaFleur, had entered into a common law marriage on November 30, 2003, when they held a ceremony.

¶8 LaFleur argued that, as a matter of law, the couple could not have entered into a common law marriage because "same sex marriages were not recognized or protected under Colorado law" at that time. LaFleur further argued that, as a matter of fact, he and Pyfer did not mutually agree to enter into a common law marriage, as required under the test articulated in Lucero .

¶9 Following an evidentiary hearing during which the court heard testimony from the parties and several of their family members and friends, the district court held that Pyfer and LaFleur entered into a common law marriage on November 30, 2003, the date of the ceremony. The court acknowledged that same-sex marriage was not recognized in Colorado until at least 2014. It reasoned, however, that same-sex couples’ ability to marry was eventually "recognized as a fundamental right that could not be denied" and that this right was not "suddenly created" but "existed prior to 2014." Thus, the court concluded, Pyfer and LaFleur could enter into a common law marriage before Colorado recognized same-sex couples’ right to marry.

¶10 The court acknowledged that it had to decide "whether one can exhibit the intent to be married [for purposes of establishing a common law marriage] when such a relationship is not cognizable under the law." The court then weighed the evidence from the hearing to determine the parties’ intent to enter a marital relationship. It found that Pyfer proposed marriage to LaFleur and that Pyfer intended to be married. LaFleur accepted the proposal in front of Pyfer's sister, and the parties later participated in a ceremony in which they exchanged vows and rings before family and friends. The court noted that this ceremony "certainly appear[ed] to be a wedding." The court highlighted photographs in evidence showing that "[t]here were rings, tuxes, attendance [by friends and family], [a] toast, vows, [and] a reverend," and it observed that Pyfer and LaFleur signed a document titled "Certificate of Holy Union." Moreover, after the ceremony, Pyfer "held himself out as married to family and friends" and listed LaFleur as his spouse on an HR form in 2016 and on a vehicle in 2017. LaFleur financially supported Pyfer and they cohabitated, sharing the same room until "the last couple of years" before the dissolution petition was filed.

¶11 LaFleur testified that he never intended to be married and would not have gone through with the ceremony had he thought it would be legally binding with respect to his assets. However, the court found that LaFleur knew that Pyfer was listing him as a spouse on documents and was telling his family and friends they were married, and there was no evidence that LaFleur ever confronted Pyfer about doing so.

¶12 The court acknowledged that neither Pyfer nor LaFleur "really wore their wedding rings"; that they "did not share bank accounts"; that LaFleur's family "denied that the parties were married" and "minimized the impact of the ceremony"; and that LaFleur did not "tell his co-workers he was married," although the court also heard testimony that LaFleur worked in an environment that was "not welcoming" of same-sex couples.

¶13 After weighing all of this evidence, the court ultimately found that, even if he "did not want all of the legal obligations that come with a marriage," LaFleur "acquiesced when he accepted [Pyfer's marriage] proposal and went through with their ceremony" and "intended to be joined with [Pyfer] for the rest of his life" on the date of the ceremony. The court therefore concluded that Pyfer and LaFleur entered into a common law marriage on November 30, 2003.

¶14 The court then proceeded with the dissolution proceedings and entered a dissolution decree and permanent orders. The court awarded the entirety of the marital value of the home to LaFleur. It awarded $50,000 of LaFleur's Roth IRA to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • People v. Clark
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • 24 Marzo 2022
    ...as though married" because vagrancy definition included "lead[ing] an ... immoral ... course of life"), abrogated by LaFleur v. Pyfer , 2021 CO 3, 479 P.3d 869 ; Pumphrey v. State , 156 Ala. 103, 47 So. 156, 158 (1908) (permitting jurors to presume a white woman would not consent to sex wit......
  • Hogsett v. Neale
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • 11 Enero 2021
    ... ... 1 In this case and two others announced today, In re Estate of Yudkin , 2021 CO 2, 478 P.3d 732, and In re Marriage of LaFleur & Pyfer , 2021 CO 3, 479 P.3d 869, we revisit the test for proving a common law marriage that we articulated over three decades ago in People v ... ...
  • Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Rintoul
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 11 Mayo 2022
    ...Id. at 618 (quoting Tex. Fam. Code § 2.401 ); see also Swicegood v. Thompson , 435 S.C. 63, 865 S.E.2d 775 (2021) ; LaFleur v. Pyfer , 479 P.3d 869 (Colo. 2021) ; In re J.K.N.A. , 398 Mont. 72, 454 P.3d 642 (2019) ; In re Estate of Carter , 159 A.3d 970 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017). As noted in An......
  • Shtutman v. Dareuskaya (In re Yudkin)
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • 11 Enero 2021
    ... ... See In re Marriage of Hogsett & Neale , 2021 CO 1, 478 P.3d 713 ; In re Marriage of LaFleur & Pyfer , 2021 CO 3, 479 P.3d 869. In the lead case, Hogsett , we refine Colorado's common law marriage test to better reflect the social and legal ... ...
2 books & journal articles
  • Common Law Marriage and a "refined" Look at People v. Lucero 50 Colo.law. 50
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 50-6, June 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...of Hogsett and Neal, 478 P.3d 713 (Colo. 2021); In re Estate of Yudkin, 478 P.3d 732 (Colo. 2021); In re Marriage of LaFleur and Pyfer, 479 P.3d 869 (Colo. 2021). [2] People v. Lucero, 747 P.2d 660, 663-65 (Colo. 1987). Common law marriage is established by the mutual consent or agreement o......
  • Common Law Marriage: a New Definition of an Age-old Concept
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 50-11, December 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...[19] Id. [20] Hogsett, 478 P.3d 713. [21] In re Estate of Yudkin, 478 P.3d 732 (Colo. 2021). [22] In re Marriage of LaFleur and Pyfer, 479 P.3d 869 (Colo. 2021). [23] Rosenberg, "'I Do?' Common Law Marriage and a 'Refined' Look at People v. Lucero" 50 Colo. Law. 50 (June 2021), https://cl.c......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT