No. 12381
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA
F F
1973
I N THE M T E O T E ESTATE O
ATR F H F
VIOLET SMITH STAVENS , Deceased.
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable C . B. Sande, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f Record :
For Appellant :
S a n d a l l , Moses and Cavan, B i l l i n g s , Montana
D. Frank Kampfe argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana
For Respondent:
Evalyn B. Carson argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana
Submitted: March 28, 1973
Decided : mfi8 ? 1973
M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e
Court.
This i s an appeal from an o r d e r entered i n t h e d i s t r i c t
c o u r t of t h e t h i r t e e n t h j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , Yellowstone County,
denying ~ e t i t i o n e r ' smotion f o r a new t r i a l .
The d i s p u t e i n t h i s case concerns a determinatian of t h e
proper h e i r o r h e i r s of t h e deceased V i o l e t Smith Slavens.
Decedent, h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o a s Mrs. Slavens, d i e d i n t e s t a t e
i n September 1971, Rose Smith Meyers, Mrs, Slavens' s i s t e r , was
appointed a d m i n i s t r a t r i x . Lon Marsh, p e t i t i o n e r h e r e , then p e t i -
tioned t h e c o u r t t o determine h e i r s h i p basing h i s claim on an
a l l e g e d common law marriage between himself and M r s , Slavens. The
t r i a l c o u r t found a g a i n s t t h e p e t i t i o n e r and w e affirm.
Mrs. Slavens and Marsh were married i n 1960 i n Roundup,
Montana. A f t e r seven y e a r s of marriage, t h e p a r t i e s were divorced
i n June 1967. A s p a r t of t h e property settlement Mrs. Slavens
received a ranch i n Laurel, Montana and Marsh received an apartment
b u i l d i n g i n B i l l i n g s , Montana, Both p a r t i e s being avid r a c e horse
e n t h u s i a s t s , they continued t o conduct c e r t a i n business t r a n s -
actions jointly. Marsh managed t h e ranch and t h e r a c e h o r s e s ,
while Mrs. Slavens c o l l e c t e d r e n t s on ~ a r s h ' sproperty i n B i l l i n g s
f o r him, Occasionally Marsh and Mrs. Slavens went on horse r a c i n g
t r i p s t o g e t h e r ; t h e p a r t i e s were, a t d i f f e r e n t times, seen a t
motels t o g e t h e r a f t e r t h e i r divorce and p e t i t i o n e r a l l e g e s they had
resumed m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n s ,
The major p o r t i o n of t h e controversy concerns whether t h e
p a r t i e s were l i v i n g t o g e t h e r i n M r s , Slavens' apartment i n B i l l i n g s .
T h i s i s s i g n i f i c a n t because, i f t r u e , i t would add credence t o Marsh's
contention t h a t a common law marriage e x i s t e d a t a t i m e subsequent
t o t h e i r divorce. Marsh contended t h a t s h o r t l y a f t e r t h e i r divorce
they resumed a marriage r e l a t i o n s h i p n o t u n l i k e t h a t which e x i s t e d
p r i o r t o t h e i r divorce, He f u r t h e r contended he and M r s , Slavens
agreed t o l i v e a s husband and wife and they consummated t h e marriage.
P e t i t i o n e r introduced considerable testimony and evidence
tending t o show t h a t he l i v e d a t M r s . Slavens' apartment, a t
l e a s t some of t h e time. Marsh received mail a t t h e apartment,
o f t e n cooked dinner t h e r e , watched t e l e v i s i o n t h e r e , and had h i s
own key t o t h e apartment.
O t h e o t h e r hand, t h e r e was testimony by t h e apartment
n
house manager t h a t Marsh d i d n o t l i v e t h e r e and M r s . Slavens, i n
f a c t , l i v e d alone. Further testimony ~f M r s , Slavens' sisters
i n d i c a t e d t h a t , t o h e r family, she was known a s a s i n g l e woman
a f t e r h e r divorce from Marsh and she continued t o regard h e r s e l f
a s s i n g l e u n t i l h e r death. I n a d d i t i o n , respondents, t h e n a t u r a l
h e i r s of M r s . Slavens, introduced numerous e x h i b i t s showing t h a t
Mrs. Slavens h e l d h e r s e l f out a s a s i n g l e woman a f t e r h e r divorce.
These e x h i b i t s included income t a x r e t u r n s , r e t i r e m e n t claims,
doctor and h o s p i t a l b i l l s , t r a d e b i l l s , and correspondence,
While t h e f a c t t h a t Marsh a.nd Mrs. Slavens might have
l i v e d t o g e t h e r i s important, i t i s only one of s e v e r a l f a c t o r s t o
be considered i n determining whether a common law marriage e x i s t e d .
The Court i s aware t h e presumption of a moral and l e g a l r e l a t i o n -
s h i p i s a s t r o n g one. W noted i n Welch v. A l l Persons, 78 Mont.
e
370, 384, 254 P, 179:
The presumption i n favor of matrimony i s one
11
of t h e s t r o n g e s t known t o t h e law, I I
The Court f u r t h e r noted i n Welch t h a t marriage does n o t a r i s e by
the mere f a c t of c o h a b i t a t i o n alone.
Section 48-101, R,C.M, 1947, s t a t e s what c o n s t i t u t e s a
marriage :
Marriage i s a personal r e l a t i o n a r i s i n g out
II
of a c i v i l c o n t r a c t , t o which t h e consent of
p a r t i e s capable of making it i s necessary,
Consent alone w i l l n a t c o n s t i t u t e marriage;
i t must be followed by a solemnization, o r by
mutual and p u b l i c assumption of t h e m a r i t a l
relation."
I n Welch and more r e c e n t l y i n M i l l e r v. Townsend Lumber
Co., 152 Mont. 210, 448 P.2d 148, t h e Court c a r e f u l l y considered
s e c t i o n 48-101, R.C.M.1947. Applying t h a t s e c t i o n t o t h e f a c t s
h e r e , we f i n d t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t had s u f f i c i e n t evidence
t o f i n d a common lzw marriage d i d n o t e x i s t between Marsh and
Mrs. Slavens subsequent t o t h e i r divorce i n 1967.
P e t i t i o n e r r e l i e s on t h e r e c e n t c a s e of I n t h e Matter of
t h e E s t a t e of Swanson, - ,
Mont , 502 P,2d 3 3 , 29 St.Rep,
819. Marsh contends Swanson i s i d e n t i c a l t o h i s own case, We
do n o t f i n d t h e s i m i l a r i t y between t h e circumstances of t h e two
cases a s does p e t i t i o n e r . I n Swanson, Hazel Hzefner Swanson h e l d
h e r s e l f out t o f r i e n d s and neighbors a s t h e wife of t h e deceased
George Swanson. V i o l e t Smith Slavens d i d n o t hold h e r s e l f o u t
a s t h e wife of Lon Marsh, Here, t h e t r a n s c r i p t c o n t a i n s testimony
t h a t o t h e r people assumed o r considered then t o be married b u t
t h e r e i s no showing t h a t Mrs. Slavens ever h e l d h e r s e l f out a s
t h e wife of Marsh a f t e r t h e divorce, On t h e c o n t r a r y , t h e docu-
mentary evidence would i n d i c a t e t h a t q u i t e t h e opposite was t r u e .
I n t h e second appeal of Welch v. A l l Persons, 85 Mont, 114,
133, 278 P. 110, t h i s Court s a i d :
"The consent of t h e p a r t i e s must be mutual.
* * * While t h e consent need n o t be expressed
i n any p a r t i c u l a r form *** i t must be given
with such an i n t e n t on t h e Dart of each of
t h e p a r t i e s t h a t marriage c i n n o t be s a i d t o
s t e a l upon them unawares. 'One cannot become
married unwittingly o r a c c i d e n t a l l y . The
consent required by our s t a t u t e s , a s w e l l a s
t h e s t a t u t e s of every s t a t e , and by t h e common
law, must be s e r i o u s l y given with t h e d e l i b e r a t e
i n t e n t i o n t h a t marriage r e s u l t p r e s e n t l y t h e r e -
from. " (Emphasis added) ,
Here, t h e r e simply was no showing, o t h e r than t h e a l l e g e d
c o h a b i t a t i o n , t h a t Mrs. Slavens d e s i r e d t o c r e a t e a new marriage
a r consented t o a resumption of a m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p . Had t h e
p a r t i e s , i n f a c t , c o n t i n u a l l y cohabitated a f t e r t h e i r divorce,
i t i s s t i l l only evidence of a marriage, n o t conclusive of t h e
marriage i t s e l f . W a r e not persuaded t h a t , on t h e b a s i s of t h e
e
a l l e g e d c o h a b i t a t i o n , t h e r e e x i s t e d a v a l i d common law marriage.
The t r i a l c o u r t had ample j u s t i f i c a t i o n and s u f f i c i e n t
evidence t o f i n d t h a t no common law marriage e x i s t e d between t h e
p a r t i e s and t h a t h e i r s o f t h e decedent b e determined i n accord-
ance w i t h t h e laws of i n t e s t a t e s u c c e s s i o n , based on h e r s i n g l e
status,
The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s affirmed.
i Associate J u s t i c e
W Concur:
e
Associate a u s t i c e s .
C
Hon. Edward T. B u s s a u l t , D i s t r i c t
Judge, s i t t i n g f a r Chief J u s t i c e
James T. Harrison.