Mueggenborg v. Walling

• Decision Date: 15 July 1992
• Docket Number: No. 72253,72253
• Citation: 836 P.2d 112,1992 OK 112
• Parties: Julie MUEGGENBORG, Appellee, v. Robert John WALLING a/k/a Robert John Wilkerson, Appellant.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Page 112

836 P.2d 112

1992 OK 121

Julie MUEGGENBORG, Appellee, v. Robert John WALLING a/k/a Robert John Wilkerson, Appellant.

No. 72253.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

July 15, 1992.

ON CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS, DIVISION 2.

The appellee, Julie Mueggenborg, petitioned the district court, Oklahoma County, Charles F. Kelley, J., for a determination of paternity and for custody of her two children. The appellant, Robert John Walling, had the two children in his custody at the time the cause was filed and in his answer, filed for divorce alleging a common law marriage to the appellee. The district court found that the parties were not married, that the appellant was the father of the older child, but not the father of the younger child, and awarded custody to the appellee. The Court of Appeals reversed.

CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED. OPINION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS VACATED. JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT AFFIRMED.

John C. Forbes and Leslie M. Forbes, Oklahoma City, for appellee.

M. Eileen Echols and David W. Echols, Oklahoma City, for appellant.

ALMA WILSON, Justice:

There are two issues in this case: whether the trial court erred in finding that the appellant failed to prove that the parties had entered into a common law marriage; and whether the trial court erred in placing custody of two minor children with the appellee. A review of the evidence reveals that the trial court did not err in its judgment.

Although disputed, the record supports the following facts. In 1982, the appellant, Robert John Walling, then twenty-nine years old, moved the appellee, fifteen-year-old ¹ Julie Long (now Mueggenborg), in with him. In 1983, Long gave birth to a son. About eighteen months later she moved out with her son in order to escape Walling's physical violence. Long was eighteen at the time she left. She became involved in a relationship with Johnny Knowland, and in March of 1985, after living with Knowland for six months, she bore a daughter. During this time, the son began living with Walling who lived with Long's brother and Sylvia Hames.

Walling began an affair with Long's mother. Her mother was caring for the Long's daughter and while Long was away from her mother's home, in August 1985, the mother gave her granddaughter to Walling. Long attempted to visit with her children, but Walling resisted, beating her and causing her to fear him. In October 1986, Long got her first full-time job at a thrift store. She married Patrick Mueggenborg in December 1986. In November 1987, Walling returned the children to their mother, Julie Long. But within a few weeks, Long's mother took the children for a visit with Walling and he refused to allow them to return home. Walling admitted that he told Long to go to court to get visitation.

In May 1988, Long filed suit to gain custody of her children and to legally determine their paternity. In his answer, Walling asked for a divorce claiming that he and Long had entered into a common law marriage. The trial court determined that no common law marriage existed; that the daughter was not the child of Walling; and that custody of Long's two children should be placed with her. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. We have previously granted certiorari.

Rath v. Maness, 470 P.2d 1011, 1013 (Okla.1970), holds:

A common-law marriage requires competent parties, who enter the relationship by mutual agreement, exclusive of all others, consummating arrangement [sic] by cohabitation and open assumption of marital duties, and such relationship must be established by evidence that is clear and convincing. Maxfield v. Maxfield, Okl., 258 P.2d 915. ²

The standard of appellate review is stated in Daniels v. Mohon, 350 P.2d 932 (Okla.1960). This Court held that where evidence is conflicting concerning the existence of a common law marriage, the trial court's judgment that no common law marriage had been effected would not be disturbed where such finding was not clearly against the weight of the evidence. Daniels, 350 P.2d at 935.

The trial transcript reveals that the trial judge stated that he could not find any evidence of a common law marriage. At the hearing, Long consistently denied she was married to Walling. Although she testified that Walling had told her that he had been married before to Susan Smith, the alleged prior marriage was not mentioned by the trial court as persuasive to its judgment. The trial court found that Long was underage at the time Walling claimed that they had agreed to be married. Although Walling had introduced Long as his wife, Walling admitted that in 1987 he filed his income tax return as single. Walling had the burden of proving the common law marriage by clear and convincing evidence. Rath, 470 P.2d at 1013. The trial court findings indicate that he believed that the elements of competence and mutuality of agreement, requirements to validate a common law marriage as listed in Rath, were missing and therefore no common law marriage could exist. Although the evidence is conflicting concerning the existence of a common law marriage between Long and Walling, the finding of the trial court is not clearly against the weight of that evidence. ³ Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court regarding Walling's failure to prove a common law marriage will not be disturbed.

Walling additionally appeals the award of custody of the two children to Long. Custody contests are of equitable cognizance and while an appellate court may examine and weigh the evidence, the findings and decree of the trial court cannot be disturbed unless found to be against the clear weight of the evidence. Carpenter v. Carpenter, 645 P.2d 476, 480 (Okla.1982). Much of Walling's argument is based upon the false assumption that a common law marriage existed between the parties and the law cited in his brief applies to married parties. Although evidence was presented that Walling was the primary caretaker of the children during most of their lives, evidence was also presented that the children were left with Walling through his use of intimidation, deceit and physical force. The trial court is entitled to choose which testimony to believe as the judge has the advantage over this Court in observing the behavior and demeanor of the witnesses. The court's judgment need not rest upon uncontradicted evidence. Carpenter, 645 P.2d at 480.

Concerning the daughter, the trial court found that no common law marriage existed and that the genetic evidence provided to the court by the Sylvan N. Goldman Center Oklahoma Blood Institute, revealed that Walling was excluded as the biological father of the young girl. "The mother of an illegitimate unmarried minor is entitled to its custody, services and earnings." 10 O.S.1991, § 6, Plunkett v. Atkins, 371 P.2d 727, 729-730 (Okla.1962). The trial court properly granted custody to the mother.

Concerning the son born to Long and Walling, Walling argues that the trial court was predisposed to keeping the children together even though such would not be in the best interests of their son. Long answers with a citation from the trial transcript revealing that the trial court stated that it would place custody where the children would be best suited even if the result were separating the children. The law requires that the best interest of the child be the paramount consideration of the trial court. Rice v. Rice, 603 P.2d 1125, 1128 (Okla.1979). "The court's decision is presumed to include a finding favorable to the successful party upon every fact necessary to support it." Carpenter, 645 P.2d at 480. We presume that the trial court considered the best interests of the son of the parties, even though the court did not expressly use those words. The evidence reveals that the son of the parties and the daughter of Long have always been together. We find no abuse of the trial court's discretion in granting custody of the son to Long because that decision is not against the clear weight of the evidence.

CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED. OPINION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS VACATED. JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT AFFIRMED.

OPALA, C.J., and KAUGER, SUMMERS and WATT, JJ., concur.

HODGES, V.C.J., and LAVENDER, SIMMS and HARGRAVE, JJ., dissent.

OPALA, Chief Justice, concurring.

The court upholds today the nisi prius ruling that the parties to this appeal had not entered into a common-law marital relationship. ¹ Although I accede to the court's judgment and concur in its pronouncement, I write separately to correct the faulty exposition of common-law marriage that crept into some of our extant jurisprudence. The significance of cohabitation ² in the context of a common-law marriage has suffered from several decades of irreconcilably discordant jurisprudence. ³ This case presents an opportunity to reinfuse the body of our unwritten law ⁴ with the ancient lore that regards cohabitation as not essential to achieving matrimonial status by common-law marriage.

Common-law marriage has roots as far back as the 12th Century canon law. ⁵ Under the rules introduced by Pope Alexander III, ⁶ marriage could be contracted by consent alone--sans ecclesiastical ceremony, parental consent, or physical consummation--if the consent was "in the words of the present tense." ⁷ Under Oklahoma law, first pronounced in 1905, the same rule applies--a common-law marriage is contracted by per verba de praesenti. ⁸ If a man and woman declare that they take each other as husband and wife, at the moment of their mutual consent, they are married. ⁹ Early case law recognizes that the vital point of inquiry into the existence of a non-ceremonial marriage focuses on whether there was mutual consent of both parties to a present or immediate assumption of the marital bond. Repute and mutual holding out as husband and wife are merely evidentiary of the antecedent consent's reality. ¹⁰ Cohabitation is probative of a voluntary relationship which may be marital in character if mutual consent is otherwise found...