Common-law marriage — where it still exists

Common-law marriage descends from the medieval Church's recognition of clandestine marriages. Before the Council of Trent in 1563, a Catholic marriage required only present consent between two capacitated persons (verba de praesenti), with no priest or witnesses necessary. The exchange "I take thee as my wife" / "I take thee as my husband" was canonically sufficient. Trent imposed the requirement of a parish priest and witnesses for Catholics, but the older rule survived in Protestant England and traveled to its colonies. The 1753 Marriage Act in England (Lord Hardwicke's Act) imposed banns and ceremony in England but did not extend to Scotland, Ireland, or the American colonies, which preserved the older common-law rule. Scotland's Gretna Green elopement industry was a direct consequence — English couples crossed the border to use the older Scottish rule. The American doctrine grew from this English-Scottish bifurcation.

The Michigan Supreme Court's decision in Meister v. Moore (1877), affirmed by the US Supreme Court, became the foundational US authority. The case involved a marriage contracted in the 1840s in a Native American community without clergy. The court held that statutory marriage requirements were directory, not mandatory, and that a marriage formed by present consent of capacitated parties was valid. This holding was widely cited through the late nineteenth century to validate frontier and informal unions. By 1900 virtually all states recognized common-law marriage. The shift came in the early twentieth century as urban populations grew, administrative state capacity expanded, and the protective function of common-law marriage was reframed as a source of litigation costs.

Texas occupies a unique position. The state recognizes common-law marriage under traditional doctrine — agreement, cohabitation, holding out — but also provides for a Declaration of Informal Marriage filed at the county clerk's office. The Declaration is a sworn statement by both parties that they are married, signed and recorded, that creates documentary proof. About 4,000 Declarations are filed annually in Texas. The Declaration is useful because it preempts the evidentiary problem of common-law marriage — there is no factual dispute about whether the parties met the elements, only a recorded statement that they did. The Texas approach is a sensible middle ground that other common-law states could adopt, and several have considered it.

The single most litigated element is holding out. The classic Colorado case People v. Lucero (1989) catalogued the indicators: tax returns, deeds and titles, insurance beneficiary designations, hospital admission forms, employment records, social introductions, surname usage. Lucero held that no single indicator is dispositive and that the totality of the parties' conduct must be assessed. The problem is that adult couples in long-term relationships generate ambiguous evidence: joint accounts but separate tax filings; shared housing but separate insurance; introductions as "partner" in some contexts and "wife" in others. The 2020s reality of cohabiting couples who are explicitly not married further muddies the inference — courts must distinguish couples who held themselves out as married from couples who simply lived as married.

Social Security recognizes common-law marriage when the state of domicile recognizes it. A common-law widow in Texas, Colorado, or Iowa can claim survivor benefits. A common-law widow in California cannot. This creates a substantial federal benefit gradient tied to state law and to the question of where the parties were domiciled when the common-law marriage was formed. Social Security Administration adjudicators routinely confront cases where the parties moved between common-law and non-common-law states, and conflict-of-laws principles determine the outcome. The aggregate fiscal stakes are not trivial — surviving spouse benefits average around $18,000 annually.

Margaret Brinig has argued that common-law marriage historically served as a protective floor for women in unequal informal unions. A man who lived with a woman for twenty years and benefited from her domestic labor could, without common-law marriage, walk away with nothing owed. With common-law marriage, the relationship became enforceable on both sides. Brinig's framework treats common-law marriage as part of the broader covenantal architecture of family law — a recognition that long-term intimate relationships generate reliance interests that the law should protect. The abolition of common-law marriage shifts protection to other doctrines (palimony, equitable distribution of cohabitant property, parentage), but those alternatives are weaker and less universally available.

Common-law marriage produces a recurring pattern of post-mortem claims. A long-term partner of a decedent appears at probate to assert a common-law marriage, often against the objections of the decedent's family. The claimant testifies to a present agreement; the decedent cannot rebut. The Dead Man's statutes in some states limit the claimant's testimony about communications with the decedent, but the holding-out evidence is independent. Courts have sometimes been credulous, sometimes skeptical. The pattern of contested probate cases is a significant part of why states have moved to abolish — the doctrine produces a steady stream of high-stakes, fact-intensive disputes that the courts find draining.

Pennsylvania's 2005 abolition by the legislature followed a judicial cri de coeur. The Commonwealth Court in PNC Bank v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (1998) had described common-law marriage as "a fruitful source of perjury and fraud" and urged the legislature to abolish it. The 2005 statute (23 Pa.C.S. § 1103) provided that no common-law marriage formed after January 1, 2005 would be recognized, while preserving existing common-law marriages. Two decades later, Pennsylvania courts still hear cases involving common-law marriages formed before 2005, and will continue to for the lifetimes of the parties involved. The slow tail of the doctrine is one of its administrative features.

South Carolina's Supreme Court abolished prospectively in Stone v. Thompson (2019). The court did what the legislature had not: it ended common-law marriage by judicial decision, citing the same fraud and uncertainty concerns Pennsylvania had cited. The decision was prospective only — existing common-law marriages remain valid — but new common-law marriages cannot be formed in South Carolina after July 24, 2019. The decision is notable because most jurisdictions have left abolition to legislatures. Judicial abolition of a long-standing doctrine raises separation-of-powers questions that the South Carolina court addressed by emphasizing that common-law marriage was itself a judicial creation in the state.

After Obergefell, an open question emerged: could a same-sex couple in a common-law marriage state establish a common-law marriage retroactive to a period before same-sex marriage was legally available? Several states have answered yes. Colorado in Hogsett v. Neale (2021) held that the elements of common-law marriage could be applied retroactively to same-sex couples whose conduct, had they been opposite-sex, would have constituted common-law marriage. This is significant for probate, Social Security, and other benefits where the date of marriage matters. The retroactive recognition is also intellectually clean: if the doctrine recognizes marriage by conduct rather than paperwork, it should not matter that the paperwork was historically unavailable.

In states without common-law marriage, cohabitation contracts (often called Marvin agreements after the California Marvin v. Marvin case) provide an alternative protective mechanism. A cohabitation contract is an express agreement between unmarried partners about property, support, and division on separation or death. It is enforceable in most states under standard contract principles. The limitation is that it requires affirmative drafting — couples must know to do it, and most do not. Common-law marriage, by contrast, operated as a default rule that captured couples whose conduct fit even when they had not affirmatively planned. The shift from common-law marriage to cohabitation contracts is a shift from default protection to opt-in protection, which is administratively cleaner but covers fewer people.

A common-law marriage validly formed in one state is generally recognized in all states under the place-of-celebration rule. This means a Texas common-law couple who relocate to New York are married in New York for all purposes. The doctrine extends the practical reach of the surviving common-law jurisdictions well beyond their borders. A New York probate court routinely receives Texas common-law marriage claims and applies Texas law to determine validity. This conflicts rule is one reason the surviving common-law states have continuing national significance — they export their doctrine through their migrating residents.

The trajectory points toward eventual extinction. Each decade sees one or two states abolish. The protective function has been partly absorbed by other doctrines and by the increased ease of formal marriage. The administrative case for abolition is strong. The likely endpoint is a small set of holdouts — perhaps Texas alone, given its Declaration mechanism and its political resistance to following national trends — and a long tail of pre-abolition unions whose probate consequences will play out across the twenty-first century. The doctrine that once made the American frontier possible will end as a probate footnote.

1. Brinig, Margaret F. Family, Law, and Community: Supporting the Covenant. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010.

2. Brinig, Margaret F. From Contract to Covenant: Beyond the Law and Economics of the Family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000.

3. Bowman, Cynthia Grant. Unmarried Couples, Law, and Public Policy. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

4. Cherlin, Andrew J. The Marriage-Go-Round: The State of Marriage and the Family in America Today. New York: Knopf, 2009.

5. Polikoff, Nancy D. Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage: Valuing All Families under the Law. Boston: Beacon Press, 2008.

6. Eskridge, William N. Equality Practice: Civil Unions and the Future of Gay Rights. New York: Routledge, 2002.

7. Davis, Beverly. "The Decline of Common-Law Marriage in America." Family Law Quarterly 38, no. 3 (2004): 511-38.

8. Grossberg, Michael. Governing the Hearth: Law and the Family in Nineteenth-Century America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1985.

9. Cott, Nancy F. Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000.

10. Hartog, Hendrik. Man and Wife in America: A History. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000.

11. Lind, Göran. Common Law Marriage: A Legal Institution for Cohabitation. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.

12. Garrison, Marsha. "Is Consent Necessary? An Evaluation of the Emerging Law of Cohabitant Obligation." UCLA Law Review 52, no. 3 (2005): 815-97.