Skipworth v. Skipworth
| Decision Date | 21 July 1978 |
| Citation | 360 So.2d 975 |
| Parties | Clarence SKIPWORTH v. Mary Burke SKIPWORTH. 77-502. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Noble J. Russell and Robert Straub of Russell & Straub, Decatur, for appellant.
Kenneth Shelton, Decatur, for appellee.
This appeal arises from a challenge by Clarence Skipworth, brother of W. C. Skipworth, to the appointment of Mary Burke Skipworth as administratrix of the estate of W. C. (Bill) Skipworth. The trial court, after hearing the evidence ore tenus, found that Mary Burke Skipworth was the common-law wife of Bill Skipworth, and therefore may be appointed. We affirm.
Extensive testimony was presented to the trial court, and though some of it was in conflict, the following information can be gleaned from the record. Mary Burke and Bill Skipworth were originally married in 1960 when they were both in their fifties. This was Mary's fifth marriage (she had divorced and remarried one husband) and Bill's second marriage. In 1965 Mary secured a divorce from Bill after a fourteen months separation, although there was testimony at trial that the separation was neither continuous nor complete. Shortly after Bill signed the divorce papers the couple "forgave each other" and according to Mary's testimony resumed marital relations. This status continued until Bill's death in October, 1976, with only occasional, and brief interruptions, when Bill was drinking "booze."
Throughout their formal marriage, and their purported common-law marriage, Mary and Bill maintained several residences, all acquired by them individually prior to the formal marriage in 1960. These residences included a farm owned by Mary, a flower shop and adjacent house on Moulton Street in Decatur, also owned by Mary, and a combination house and store on Sixth Avenue owned by Bill. From 1963 on Mary operated the flower Shop on Moulton Street under the name of "Mary Burke Florist," a business name which had originally been established in the early 1950's. Because of her business, many people always referred to her simply as "Mary Burke." Bill operated several enterprises during this time, including his own flower shop at his place on Sixth Avenue and a pool room on Moulton Street. It is apparent that from the time of their formal marriage in 1960 until Bill's death both Mary and Bill conducted their business affairs as if they were both single. They kept separate bank accounts, both claimed homestead exemptions, and they filed separate income tax forms as single individuals. On the other hand, testimony indicated that they lived together, for the most part in Mary's house on Moulton Street, although Bill would occasionally stay at his house on Sixth Avenue when he was drinking or it was convenient to his work. In later years the house on Sixth Avenue apparently became more of a kennel, unfit for human habitation.
Following their divorce, Mary and Bill continued to represent themselves to the general public, their neighbors, their doctor, and hospitals as husband and wife, although when questioned, they explained the situation. Several witnesses described them as inseparable. During this time they purchased a double grave and headstone and Bill purchased several insurance policies with Mary as beneficiary. About the only ones who did not consider the couple married were members of Bill's family.
It is clear that Mary and Bill were aware that there were legal problems inherent in their status. They executed several legal documents, deeds and tax forms, as single individuals, although the evidence also showed they had filed their taxes this way prior to the divorce. Insurance, on the other hand, was purchased as husband and wife. Because of their uncertain legal status, Mary and Bill planned to undergo a second formal marriage in December of 1976, an event which was foreclosed by Bill's demise in October.
The requirements in this state for a valid common-law marriage have been outlined numerous times by this court. No ceremony and no particular words are necessary. Instead, there must first have been a present agreement, that is, a mutual understanding to enter at that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Collier v. City of Milford
...wrong...." Downs v. Newman, 500 So.2d 1062, 1063 (Ala.1986); Etheridge v. Yeager, 465 So.2d 378, 380-81 (Ala.1985); Skipworth v. Skipworth, 360 So.2d 975, 977 (Ala.1978); King v. King, 269 Ala. 468, 114 So.2d 145, 148 (1959); Baker v. Townsend, 484 So.2d 1097, 1098 (Ala.Civ.App.1986); Luthe......
-
Mattison v. Kirk
...Etheridge v. Yeager, 465 So.2d 378 (Ala.1985). No ceremony or particular words are necessary. Etheridge, supra; Skipworth v. Skipworth, 360 So.2d 975 (Ala.1978). Here, there is no dispute as to the capacity of the deceased and Dorothy to enter a valid marriage. Proof of the agreement to mar......
-
Baber v. Schweiker
...expressly considered by Alabama courts. A critical case which further defines the standard enunciated in Turner, is Skipworth v. Skipworth, 360 So.2d 975 (Ala. 1978). That case has particular relevance here since the court found that ample evidence supported a common law marriage notwithsta......
-
Smith v. Heckler
...of the existence of the 'marriage' and cohabitation or mutual assumption openly of marital duties and obligations." Skipworth v. Skipworth, 360 So.2d 975, 976-77 (Ala.1978); White v. Hill, 176 Ala. 480, 58 So. 444 (1912); Tartt et al. v. Negus, 127 Ala. 301, 28 So. 713 There is no evidence ......
-
§ 2.03 Establishing a Valid Marriage
...176 N.W.2d 801 (Iowa 1970). Texas: Leal v. Moreno, 733 S.W.2d 322 (Tex. App. 1987). [70] See, e.g.: Alabama: Skipworth v. Skipworth, 360 So.2d 975 (Ala. 1979). Iowa: In re Estate of Fisher, 176 N.W.2d 801 (Iowa 1970). [71] In re Estate of Duval, 777 N.W.2d 380 (S.D. 2010).[72] See Clark, N.......