Family law outline – Rollins, Spring 2013
What Constitutes a Family?
What is a family, and who gets to define it?
Ladue v. Horn
· Definition of family: “A commitment to permanent relationship and perceived obligation to support each other.”
· Facts: Blended family lived together; the mother and father never married, but held themselves out as husband/wife (joint T/Rs, shared checking, did stuff together; lived in Ladue.
o Challenging zoning ordinance (Ladue claimed they violated), which defined family as one or more persons related by blood, marriage or adoption, occupying dwelling as individual housekeeping organization.
· Ps' 3 claims:
o (1) Violated constitutional right to privacy
o (2) Right to associate w/whoever they wanted, and
o (3) Violated equal protection.
· Court finds a blended family doesn't satisfy “family” definition b/c there was no permanent relationship thru marriage.
· Whether ordinance violated federal protections (Equal Protection clause):
o If the personal interest affected is fundamental, “strict scrutiny” applies and ord only upheld if show burden necessary to protect compelling govt. interest.
o If ordinance doesn't impinge on fundamental interest, “rational basis” test applies, and the ord upheld if any facts reasonably justify it.
· The ordinance fell under “rational basis” b/c didn't involve fundamental state interest.
o Ct held ordinance rationally related to its express purposes (protecting public health/safety, welfare, etc.) and Id NOT violate any constitutional rights.
o Ct found the state's interest was economic and social, and Ladue had right to make guidelines for land use, SO LONG AS it's related to purposes like economic, health/safety, general welfare.
· *Takeaway: It's legal to upheld smaller community's understanding or state's understanding of “family” AND can restrict it to narrower understanding.
o Upholding traditional family values is a “rational basis” for the ordinance.
Rights of parties to a NON-marital relationship:
*Note: Must take Hewitt and Watts together.
Hewitt v. Hewitt (SC of IL)
· *Issue: Whether one party to non-marital “family-like” relationship may recover from the other party share of profits/property accumulated by them during relationship.
· Facts: Ps have serious romantic relationship, but NOT married.
o P brings her claims under CONTRACT LAW, asking for have the property acquired during relationship. — Brought Contract claim b/c this is how parties represented their agreements (i.e. he promised to share his earnings/property w/her).
· Court weighs factors in determining whether non-married couple should be entitled to similar rights to property as married couple:
o Worried about undermining institution of marriage
o Would it undermine the family structure for children?
o Would it affect moral norms of society?
· P asking for ct to adopt aspects of common law marriage to give non-married couples similar rights to married couples.
· Holding: IL has public policy that agreement in consideration of future illicit cohabitation is void.
o Therefore, ct refused to adopt aspects of common law marriage to give P similar rights as married couples would have.
o When parties choose NOT to get married, their rights are limited (no access to dissolution statutes).
· *Note: There are 3 parties to every marriage — the 2 individuals AND the state.
Watts v. Watts (SC Wisconsin)
· Facts: Ps asking ct to adopt Washington's definition of family, which was broader, took into acct factors of common law marriage (like parties living together, whether they have children, whether they've held themselves out as being married to the public)
o Ps tried to bring contract claim, so ct looked at Hewitt; HOWEVER, the concepts from Hewitt mostly confined to IL.
· Holding: Unmarried couples ONLY entitled to CONTRACT claims for property, etc. (did NOT adopt Washington's definition of family)
o Do NOT have access to dissolution statutes (so unmarried couples don't have same rights as married couples).
o Parties can enter into contract if they're in intimate relationship, as long as they're not contracting about the relationship itself.
o The ct said marriage is “foundational.”
· Ct allowed for certain remedies under CONTRACT LAW that unmarried couples have:
o Unjust enrichment claim
o Partition remedies allowed
· **Takeaway: ONLY allows for contract claims; unmarried couples don't have access to divorce statutes.
· *Note: B/f the Marvin cases, parties could only create valid contracts if they were arms-length. HOWEVER, the Marvin courts were willing to enforce contracts b/w parties in intimate relationship.
o **This represented shift in public policy!
Marriage
Breach of Promise to Marry Cause of Action
· Few states have a cause of action for Breach of Promise to Marry — generally, woman fiancée can recover damages from her fiancé, IF he breaches a promise to marry (i.e. if he terminates the engagement).
· *History of this cause of action: it arose from a Breach of Contract action, but remedies are more like tort remedies (hence, this is a hybrid action b/c it's quasi-contract and quasi-tort).
Stanard v. Bolin – (SC Washington)
· Facts: P accepted D's marriage proposal; they purchased wedding rings, bought new home and sold all P's furniture.
o Later, D called off the wedding. As result, P lost sleep/became ill; had to repurchase furniture and cancel wedding plans, return gifts.
o P sued for damages to for (1) Humiliation and emotional distress, and (2) compensation for lost promise of financial security.
· History of Breach of Promise to Marry – this cause of action arose from breach of contract action, but remedies were more like tort remedies.
· Holding: Court upholds this cause of action (doesn't abolish).
o HOWEVER, ct decides to limit recovery under this cause of action to ONLY foreseeable special and general damages (i.e. allowed for economic loss and mental anguish damages), BUT the ct abolished claim for loss of promise of financial/social status.
· The court did allow under this action for compensation of expenses in anticipation of the wedding (dress, reserving venue/caterer, etc.)
Common Law Marriage
· **See the Common law marriage handout that lists the states who recognize common law marriage, etc.!!
Crosson v. Crosson – (Ct of Appeals, AL)
· Facts: P and D were married and divorced. Then, ex-wife agreed to move back in w/ex-husband at his invitation.
o Husband married another woman not long after, and the ex-wife sued for divorce, claiming she was his common-law wife.
· Rule: Elements of common law marriage (in Alabama):
o (1) Capacity to enter into CLM
o (2) Intent to enter into CLM — *This is main issue in this case!
o (3) Public recognition of the relationship as a marriage and public assumption of marital duties and cohabitation.
· Public recognition — what the world thinks the relationship is (External)
§ Recognition w/the state (e.g. filing joint T/Rs as married filing joint) and how they act at social gatherings CARRY EQUAL WEIGHT.
· Present, mutual understanding — Internal; what has the couple done to demonstrate their intent to enter CLM?
o **Note: You do NOT need to have a ceremony or special words to form one.
· Parties' cohabitation (moved back in as his wife) supports CLM.
· Defenses to Common law Marriage formation:
o If you're already legally married to someone else.
o If you don't have capacity — b/c of age, mental capacity, etc.
o If dating other people openly (goes to public recognition). Other public recognition defenses:
· If you don't live together
· File taxes separately
· Separate mailing addresses.
· Can you “accidentally” enter into CLM? — You must live in state that reco
le of “seeded” case — where plaintiffs perfectly selected (e.g. were gay couples highly educated, upstanding members of the community, had children, had been together many years, etc.
o So they picked the optimal plaintiffs for this action.
· *Issue: Whether the govt. action barring same-sex couples from civil marriage constitutes a legitimate exercise of state power.
· What does it mean to be “married”? — (benefits)
o File joint taxes, and access to dissolution statutes,
o Can be on spouse's health ins plan
o Assumed parenting rights
o Spousal privilege in court cases.
o Inheritance – if you're married and spouse dies intestate, a spouse is assumed to be in the will (i.e. for non-married couples, must be mentioned in the will to inherit anything).
o Govt. benefits – Social sec., military pensions,
o Hospital – have automatic HIPPA rights to see med info of spouse.
· Dept. of health raised 3 arguments against Ps:
o (1) Marriage b/w man and woman creates “favorable setting” for procreation
· Court found hetero couples not required to procreate to get married;
· They don't prohibit infertile couples from being married.
· Takeaway: Reproduction has nothing to do w/civil marriage.
o (2) Ensures optimal setting for child rearing, and
· Ct responded that restricting marriage of opposite-sex couples doesn't further the state's policy for creating optimal setting for kids.
§ The state's real concern is that kids are raised in good home; the state does NOT have a legit interest in how to raise children.
o (3) Preserves scarce state/private financial resources
· Ct said this presumes same-sex couples are more financial dependent, but this is ridiculous b/c many same-sex couples have kids.
· Ct found the marriage ban bears NO rational relationship to goal of economy.
· The ct agreed w/SC in Loving v. VA, saying that parties wanting to get married CANNOT be denied license just b/c of one trait.
· Court mentioned Full Faith and Credit (where all states must recognize valid marriages from other states). — but punted on this; didn't say much.
· DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) – this is fed law that relieves responsibility of a state to comply w/Full Faith and Credit as pertains to marriage.
o This law defines marriage as b/w one man and one woman, and allows other states to refuse to recognize other state's marriages.
Formalities of Marriage
Statutorily required formalities to enter marriage:
· All states have formalities to enter a marriage:
o These formalities are LEGAL as long as they don't “significantly impair” or create absolute bar to marriage.
o Formalities can include:
· Most states require Marriage license – do NOT need solemnization to get marriage license, but do have to solemnize if that state requires it to marry.
· Some states require Solemnization
· Most states require a waiting period
· Most have filing fee to get marriage license, but can get waiver if can't afford it.
· **NO state requires domicile in the state to get married, but some require physical presence at time of ceremony.
