Vandever v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona

Citations: 714 P.2d 866; 148 Ariz. 373; 1985 Ariz. App. LEXIS 793Docket: 1 CA-IC 3337

Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona; November 21, 1985; Arizona; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The case involves Cynthia K. Vandever's claim for widow's death benefits following the death of her partner, Ronald L. Vandever, who was killed while working for Phoenix Newspapers. The Industrial Commission of Arizona denied her claim, stating she had not established a valid marriage under Arizona law. Cynthia and Ronald began cohabiting in 1976 after she divorced her previous spouse. Although they exchanged marriage vows during a friend's wedding ceremony, they did not obtain a marriage license or comply with Arizona's marriage requirements. They lived together, had two children, and identified as a married couple.

In August 1978, during a trip to Colorado, they were introduced as husband and wife at a family wedding, reinforcing their belief that they had a common-law marriage under Colorado law, which they learned about during their stay. Testimony from family members supported their claims of presenting themselves as a married couple. Ultimately, the court affirmed the administrative law judge's decision, citing substantial evidence to support the denial of benefits based on the lack of formal marriage recognition in Arizona law.

In January 1979, the decedent resigned from his job with Phoenix Newspapers in Ajo, Arizona, and the couple subsequently returned to Colorado, where the decedent unsuccessfully sought employment. They then moved to New Mexico for a month and a half before settling in Wyoming for thirteen months. In mid-1980, the decedent accepted a position with Phoenix Newspapers in Casa Grande, Arizona, where the couple lived until his death in 1983.

In a workers' compensation case, the claimant must prove all claim elements. The concept of marriage in this context adheres to standard domestic relations law. To qualify as a widow under A.R.S. 23-1046, the petitioner must demonstrate that her marriage to the decedent was valid under Arizona law. While the petitioner does not argue for a valid marriage in Arizona, she claims a valid common-law marriage was established in Colorado. Arizona does not recognize common-law marriages formed within its borders but will acknowledge those legally contracted in another jurisdiction, as per A.R.S. 25-112(A).

The dispute focuses on the definition of "contracted," with respondents contending that a common-law marriage is established in the state where the relationship begins and is consummated. They argue that, since the couple cohabited in Arizona, Arizona law should apply. However, the court disagrees, affirming that a marriage valid where contracted is recognized everywhere, as marriage is fundamentally a contractual agreement. A.R.S. 25-112 supports this understanding, emphasizing predictability and societal interest in marriage. Exceptions to this rule are minimal and primarily concern public policy, notably excluding marriages that violate consanguinity laws as outlined in A.R.S. 25-101.

Marriage is prohibited and void between close relatives, including parents and children, siblings, and first cousins. Arizona law (A.R.S. 25-112(C)) prevents parties from circumventing state marriage laws by marrying elsewhere. The validity of a foreign marriage, including common-law marriages, is judged based on the law of the state where the marriage occurred, unless extreme public policy concerns arise. In Colorado, marriage is a civil contract requiring the consent of both parties. While cohabitation and reputation can support the existence of a marriage, they are not essential; both must be shown to presume a common-law marriage exists. Cohabitation involves living together, while general reputation reflects community perception of the couple as married, based on their behavior and social interactions. Evidence must be convincing and consistent to establish this presumption.

General reputation, which can be presented as evidence to suggest the existence or absence of marriage, must be widespread and consistent. Colorado law governs the determination of actual marriage, while Arizona law sets the standard for reviewing the case. An Industrial Commission's decision will not be overturned unless there is no reasonable basis for it in the evidence. The court will view the evidence favorably towards upholding the Commission's award. In this case, the evidence supporting an actual marriage agreement was limited to the petitioner's uncontradicted testimony about a mutual decision made after a radio broadcast, which lacked sufficient credibility and did not establish a clear presumption of marriage. The only behavior evidence presented was isolated to a single wedding event, failing to meet the standards of "general and uniform" conduct necessary to support a presumption of marriage under Colorado law. The claim for widow's benefits was therefore denied, as the petitioner did not provide adequate proof of cohabitation or a reputation of marriage in Colorado. The administrative law judge's conclusions were upheld, affirming the Commission's award denial. Additionally, Arizona law stipulates that a marriage requires both a ceremony and a license to be valid.

Legal authorities and cases are referenced regarding the validity and recognition of common-law marriages, particularly in the context of cohabitation and formal agreements without ceremonies. It is established that the law of the place where the significant acts constituting the marriage occurred governs its validity, even when cohabitation spans multiple states. Disagreement is noted with cases suggesting that the domicile's policy against common-law marriages should prevail unless the couple resides in a state that recognizes such marriages. Specific cases illustrate challenges in establishing common-law marriages, including a Nebraska case requiring more than mere residency and an Illinois case where insufficient residency in Colorado failed to prove a valid common-law marriage. Additionally, cases from Arizona and New Mexico support the notion that minimal residency can validate a common-law marriage if the state does not require a minimum period of residence.