PNC Bank Corp. v. WCAB (STAMOS)
Decision Date | 17 September 2003 |
Citation | 831 A.2d 1269 |
Parties | PNC BANK CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (STAMOS), Respondent. |
Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
Joseph A. Fricker, Pittsburgh, for petitioner.
Stephen J. O'Brien, Pittsburgh, for respondent.
BEFORE: COLINS, President Judge, SMITH-RIBNER, Judge, PELLEGRINI, Judge, LEADBETTER, Judge, COHN, Judge, SIMPSON, Judge, and LEAVITT, Judge.
OPINION BY Judge LEADBETTER.
In this appeal we are called upon to address the issue left open by our Supreme Court in Staudenmayer v. Staudenmayer, 552 Pa. 253, 714 A.2d 1016 (1998), to wit: the continued viability of the doctrine of common law marriage. PNC Corporation (PNC), employer of decedent, Janet Stamos, appeals the order of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Board), affirming the grant of John Kretz's fatal claim petition after concluding that the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) properly concluded that Kretz was the common law spouse of Stamos. PNC argues both that the doctrine of common law marriage ought to be abandoned, and that even if it is not, Kretz failed to meet the heavy burden of proof required to establish such a union. For the reasons that follow, we hold that the time has come to abolish the doctrine, but that this decision should be given purely prospective effect. Because we further conclude that there was substantial evidence to support the findings of fact upon which the WCJ rested her decision, we affirm the order of the Board.
In 1997, Kretz filed a fatal claim petition alleging that he was the common law spouse of Stamos, who died in an airplane crash in 1994 while working for employer. The nature of Kretz's relationship with Stamos was the subject of the hearings that followed before the WCJ. In Pennsylvania, "a common law marriage can only be created by the exchange of words in the present tense [`verba in praesenti `], spoken with the specific purpose that the legal relationship of husband and wife is created by that." Staudenmayer, 552 Pa. at 261-62,714 A.2d at 1020 (footnote omitted).1 In order to establish the requisite verba de praesenti, Kretz submitted into evidence a document entitled, "Affidavit of Eligible Member of Iron Workers Benefit Plans of Western Pennsylvania Common Law Spouse."2 The affidavit stated, in pertinent part:
Hearing of July 23, 1997, Claimant's exhibit 1. Both Kretz and Stamos signed the affidavit on December 22, 1990 and their signatures were notarized.
Kretz also testified to the circumstances surrounding the execution of the affidavit. According to Kretz, the couple signed the affidavit because they were consolidating their benefits and insurances and he wanted to insure that if anything happened to him, his assets would go to Stamos. Kretz testified that prior to signing the affidavit, he and Stamos discussed the date of their marriage in order to pick the date of their anniversary. He admitted, however, that he meant to indicate on the affidavit that their marriage occurred in 1989 rather than 1988 and that the 1988 date was a mistake.3 Kretz also testified that he and Stamos began living together in June of 1989 and that they subsequently exchanged rings as a sign of their marriage. Kretz stated that their marriage was not taken lightly.
With respect to title to their property, Kretz testified that they did not have any jointly owned assets or debts. Although the couple was mutually dependent upon each other financially, they maintained separate bank accounts and the mortgage and deed to the couple's house, which was purchased in 1990, were in Stamos' name only. He also noted that they filed separate tax returns. In addition, Kretz offered into evidence credit card statements, cancelled checks and receipts to demonstrate the various activities and vacations that the couple took together. He also offered into evidence various sympathy cards that referred to Stamos as his wife.4 Kretz testified that following Stamos' death, he was the main point of contact between the family and airline.
Kretz also presented the deposition testimony of Boe Gillespie, the Administrative Manager of the Iron Workers Plans of Western Pennsylvania. According to Gillespie, once the common law spouse affidavit is executed, the participant cannot remove the spouse from coverage unless a divorce is obtained. In addition, a plan representative counsels participants regarding the import of executing the affidavit. Finally, employer offered into evidence Stamos' death certificate, which indicated that she was divorced and had no surviving spouse at the time of her death.
The WCJ found that:
Kretz v. PNC Bank Corp., Bureau Claim No. 983729, slip op. at 2-4 ( )(Findings of fact nos. 8 and 12). Based upon her finding that Kretz was married via common law marriage to Stamos at the time of her death, the WCJ concluded that Kretz was entitled to surviving spouse's benefits. On appeal, the Board affirmed.5
Relying on our Supreme Court's clearly articulated skepticism in Staudenmayer regarding the continued viability of the common law marriage doctrine in Pennsylvania, employer asks this court to abolish the doctrine as antiquated and lacking any valid purpose in today's society. Employer is correct that the Supreme Court has clearly stated its disapproval of the doctrine.
As the Supreme Court noted in Staudenmayer, marriage is a "civil contract by which a man and woman take each other for husband and wife." 552 Pa. at 260, 714 A.2d at 1019. Two forms of marriage are recognized in Pennsylvania, namely, ceremonial, which involves a marriage performed by a religious or civil authority with the usual ceremony or formalities, and common law. Id. at 260-61, 714 A.2d at 1019. Notwithstanding the provision in Section 1301 of the 1990 Marriage Law (Law)6 that "[n]o person shall be joined in marriage in this Commonwealth until a marriage license has been obtained," the Law explicitly left unchanged the judicially-created doctrine of common law marriage. 23 Pa.C.S. § 1103. Pennsylvania, however, is one of the minority of states that continue to recognize common law marriages. See Staudenmayer, 552 Pa. at 261 n. 3,
The doctrine of common law marriage was recognized by the United States Supreme Court as early as 1877, see Meister v. Moore, 96 U.S. 76, 24 L.Ed. 826 (1877),
and by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court as early as 1873, see Richard v. Brehm, 73 Pa. 140 (1873). Despite the well-established history of the doctrine, different views exist regarding its origins. In A Feminist Proposal to Bring Back Common Law Marriage, 75 Or. L.Rev. 709 (1996), Cynthia Grant Bowman provides an extensive historical review of common law marriages. According to Bowman's research, common law marriage in the United States stems from the informal marriages common in Europe prior to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Caspar v. Snyder
...to abolish with the law all of the effects it had produced” (quotation marks and brackets omitted)); PNC Bank Corp. v. W.C.A.B. (Stamos), 831 A.2d 1269, 1279–1283 (Pa.Commw.Ct.2003) (applying the abolition of common-law marriage prospectively); Tufts v. Tufts, 8 Utah 142, 30 P. 309, 309–310......
-
Hogsett v. Neale
...and that the elimination of common law marriage in South Carolina would be prospective only); PNC Bank Corp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. , 831 A.2d 1269, 1279 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2003) (explaining the court's view that common law marriage should no longer be recognized). In Colorado, common la......
-
Stone v. Thompson
...forth a thorough explanation for its conclusion that common-law marriage should no longer be recognized in PNC Bank Corp. v. W.C.A.B. (Stamos) , 831 A.2d 1269 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2003).3 Notably, the court determined: The circumstances creating a need for the doctrine are not present in today's......
-
International Painters and Allied Trades Industry Pension Fund v. Calabro, CIV.A. 02-CV-8312.
...fund. 3. The doctrine of common law marriage has apparently since been abolished in Pennsylvania. See PNC Bank Corp. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Stamos), 831 A.2d 1269, 1282 4. An otherwise valid marriage can be cured under 23 Pa.C.S. § 1702(a) after the impediment to marriage is......
-
The Continuing Vitality of Ravin v. State: Alaskans Still Have a Constitutional Right to Possess Marijuana in the Privacy of Their Homes
...course of precedent in anticipation of a new directive that the Court has not yet issued."); but see PNC Bank Corp. v. W.C.A.B. (Stamos), 831 A.2d 1269, 1282 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2003) ("[M]any authorities have suggested that in an appropriate case 'anticipatory overruling' may be not only permi......
-
From This Day Forward
...(2007). [6] Id. at 560. [7] Stone, 833 S.E.2d at 267. [8] Id. at 269. [9] Id. [10] Id. at 270. [11] PNC Bank Corp. v. W.C.A.B. (Stamos), 831 A.2d 1269 (Pa. Commw, Ct. 2003). [12] Stone, 833 S.E.2d at 271. [13] Id. [14] SC Code Ann. §§ 62-5-308 and 62-5-408. [15] SC Code Ann. § 44-66-30. [16......