Smith v. Anderson, 2D01-301.

Decision Date05 June 2002
Docket NumberNo. 2D01-301.,2D01-301.
Citation821 So.2d 323
PartiesSusan I. SMITH, Appellant, v. Leslie ANDERSON and Tammy Larae Mulkey, Appellees.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Charles R. Mayer, Highland City, for Appellant.

Glenn T. Shelby, Lakeland, for Appellees.

COVINGTON, Judge.

Susan Smith appeals the trial court's amended order granting summary judgment in favor of Leslie Anderson and Tammy Larae Mulkey. Ms. Anderson and Ms. Mulkey, the adult children of decedent Henton Smith, brought this action for declaratory judgment. Their rights to certain pieces of property, as well as Ms. Smith's rights, depend on whether Ms. Smith and the decedent were legally married. In turn, Ms. Smith filed a counter-claim alleging that Ms. Mulkey owed her $4000. Because there are genuine issues of material fact regarding the counter-claim, we reverse the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Ms. Mulkey. We also conclude that the trial court correctly determined that Ms. Smith and the decedent were never legally married.

Ms. Smith and the decedent participated in a marriage ceremony in Georgia on November 22, 1980.1 However, the decedent's divorce from his first wife was not final until February 18, 1981. Therefore, he was unable to enter into a valid marriage with Ms. Smith. Although the decedent became aware that the final judgment of dissolution was not entered until February 18, 1981, he never participated in a second ceremonial marriage with Ms. Smith.

At all times relevant to this case, both Ms. Smith and the decedent were Florida residents. After the ceremony in Georgia, Ms. Smith and the decedent returned to Florida. In her deposition, Ms. Smith stated that she and the decedent were married in Georgia so that her aunt would be able to attend the ceremony. Ms. Smith also stated that she and the decedent traveled to Georgia less than twice a year. It was also Ms. Smith's testimony that she and the decedent held themselves out as husband and wife; they filed joint tax returns and owned property together.

The decedent died on July 9, 1998. On November 20, 1998, the decedent's children filed a petition for administration of their father's estate and a petition to declare Ms. Smith's marriage to the decedent invalid. The trial court found that because Ms. Smith and the decedent never resided in Georgia, their marriage did not ripen into a valid common-law marriage under the laws of Georgia. Thus, the trial court found that Ms. Smith and the decedent were never legally married. We agree.

Florida does not recognize the validity of common-law marriages contracted in Florida after 1968. Anderson v. Anderson, 577 So.2d 658, 660 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (citing § 741.211, Fla. Stat. (1969)). However, Florida does recognize common-law marriages that are entered into in states that do accept common-law marriages. Id. (citing Johnson v. Lincoln Square Props., Inc., 571 So.2d 541 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)). "[T]he validity of a marriage is to be determined by the law of the jurisdiction where the marriage was entered into." Id.

According to section 19-3-1, Georgia Statutes (1980), a valid marriage in Georgia requires: (1) parties able to contract; (2) an actual contract; and (3) consummation according to law. Here, because the decedent was still married when he participated in the ceremonial marriage with Ms. Smith, he was unable to contract a valid marriage.

Ms. Smith argues that once the decedent's divorce was final, their void marriage developed into a valid marriage according to section 19-3-5(b), Georgia Statutes (1981). That statute provides in pertinent part that "after removal of the impediment to marriage, a subsequent free and voluntary consent and ratification of the marriage accompanied by cohabitation as husband and wife shall likewise render the marriage valid."

Georgia courts have held that, when a marriage is invalidated, the subsequent removal of the invalidating impediment causes a new common-law marriage to be created. Carr v. Walker, 205 Ga. 1, 52 S.E.2d 426, 431 (1949); see also Brown v. Carr, 198 Ga.App. 567, 402 S.E.2d 296 (1991)

; Brown v. Sheridan, 83 Ga.App. 725, 64 S.E.2d 636 (1951). Significantly, section 19-3-5, Georgia Statutes, does not validate the original ceremonial marriage. Instead, a new common-law marriage emerges.

Here, when the decedent's divorce was finalized, both he and Ms. Smith were living in Florida, as Florida residents. Thus, if a common-law marriage were formed between Ms. Smith and the decedent, it would have been created while they were Florida residents. The question presented to this court is whether Florida should recognize Ms. Smith's relationship to the decedent as a valid common-law marriage under the laws of Georgia, when the parties never resided in Georgia as husband and wife.

In Kersey v. Gardner, 264 F.Supp. 887 (M.D.Ga.1967), the issue before the court was whether the plaintiff and the decedent had established a valid marriage under Georgia law. The court noted that three requirements are necessary to establish a common-law marriage in Georgia, including "consummation by cohabitation in Georgia." Id. at 889. Citing to Kersey, the court in Brack v. Brack, 121 Mich.App. 585, 329 N.W.2d 432, 434 (1982), noted that "[t]here exists at least some authority that the cohabitation must occur in Georgia." There are no Florida cases directly on point. However, in Anderson, 577 So.2d at 659, the First District considered whether a couple, who had subsequently moved to Florida, had established a valid common-law marriage in Georgia. In finding that a common-law marriage existed, the court specifically recognized that "[t]he uncontroverted evidence ... established that the parties lived, cohabited, and held themselves out as husband and wife in the State of Georgia." Id. at 659. In the case at bar, the decedent and Ms. Smith never resided in Georgia. At all times relevant to this case, they were both Florida residents. Ms. Smith stated in her deposition that she visited relatives in Georgia less than twice a year.

Courts in New York have held, in workers' compensation cases, that no minimum stay in Georgia is required to establish a valid common-law marriage in Georgia. See Mott v. Duncan Petroleum Trans., 51 N.Y.2d 289, 434 N.Y.S.2d 155, 414 N.E.2d 657 (1980)

; Coney v. R.S.R. Corp., 167 A.D.2d 582, 563 N.Y.S.2d 211 (1990); see also Katebi v. Hooshiari, 288 A.D.2d 188, 732 N.Y.S.2d 382 (2001) (stating, in a divorce proceeding, that the couple's family vacations to Georgia established a valid common-law marriage in Georgia). We decline to accept this reasoning, particularly with regard to two people who never claimed to be Georgia residents or otherwise expressed an endeavor to become such.

Other states that do not recognize common-law marriages have refused to recognize such marriages when they have been contracted in other states by their own citizens. In Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Chase, 189 F.Supp. 326 (D.N.J.1960), the court considered whether New Jersey residents had established a valid common-law marriage in the District of Columbia. The court noted that the couple had resided in New Jersey at all relevant times and that their trips to the District of Columbia did not establish a valid common-law marriage. Specifically, the court noted that:

It is my view that the public policy of New Jersey as
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Cohen v. Shushan
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • March 15, 2017
    ...validity of a marriage is to be determined by the law of the jurisdiction where the marriage was entered into." Smith v. Anderson , 821 So.2d 323, 325 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (citing Anderson v. Anderson , 577 So.2d 658, 660 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) ). And "a marriage valid according to law of foreig......
  • Brandon-Thomas v. Brandon-Thomas
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • April 24, 2015
    ...even though Florida itself does not recognize common law marriages contracted for in Florida after 1968.See Smith v. Anderson, 821 So.2d 323, 325 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).Both Krista and the Attorney General take the position that Florida need not afford full faith and credit to legal out-of-stat......
  • Claflin v. Claflin
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • January 21, 2020
    ...be deemed invalid in that jurisdiction, it must be deemed invalid here." Cohen , 212 So. 3d at 1119 ; see also Smith v. Anderson , 821 So. 2d 323, 325 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) ; Young v. Garcia , 172 So. 2d 243, 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965) ; Goldman v. Dithrich , 131 Fla. 408, 179 So. 715, 716 (1938).......
  • Cimaglia v. Moore
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • January 30, 2018
    ...letter did not conclusively establish that a money transfer was intended as a gift rather than a loan. See Smith v. Anderson, 821 So. 2d 323, 326-27 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); cf. Monroe v. Appelton, 419 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) (finding a writing describing a transfer as a loan did not concl......

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