Hargrave v. Duval-Couetil

Supreme Court of South Dakota · Family Law

Family LawCommon-law marriageRecognition of foreign marriagesInheritanceConcubinagecommon-law marriageforeign marriage recognitiondomicile

Facts

Duval and Hargrave lived together beginning in 1994, spent summers in South Dakota and winters in Mexico, and bought a home together in Nuevo Leon, Mexico, in 1998 as husband and wife. They never formally married, and Hargrave testified that although they discussed a formal ceremony, they decided against it because they felt they were already married. After Duval was injured in Mexico in 2005, Hargrave took him to Oklahoma for rehabilitation and they later stayed in Oklahoma for a period before resuming their annual routine. After Duval died in South Dakota in 2008, the circuit court ruled that Hargrave was his common-law wife under Mexico and Oklahoma law.

Issue

Whether South Dakota should recognize Hargrave as Duval's surviving spouse based on a marriage allegedly formed in Nuevo Leon, Mexico, or Oklahoma. More specifically, whether South Dakota requires domicile in the foreign jurisdiction to recognize a common-law marriage, whether Mexican concubinage is equivalent to common-law marriage, and whether the evidence established an Oklahoma common-law marriage.

Rule

Under SDCL 25-1-38, South Dakota recognizes a marriage contracted outside the state if it is valid under the law of the jurisdiction where it was contracted, and domicile in that jurisdiction is not required. However, a Mexican concubinage is not the legal equivalent of a common-law marriage, and an Oklahoma common-law marriage must be proved by clear and convincing evidence of (1) a mutual agreement or declaration of intent to marry, (2) cohabitation, and (3) public holding out as husband and wife.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Leah Moreno and Victor Sloan were lifelong residents of Rapid City, South Dakota. During a six-month work project in Oklahoma City, they lived together, met Oklahoma's requirements for common-law marriage under Oklahoma law, and then returned to South Dakota, where Victor later died intestate.

If Victor's siblings argue South Dakota cannot recognize the marriage because Leah and Victor were never domiciled in Oklahoma, how should a South Dakota court rule?

Explanation. South Dakota's rule is that a marriage contracted outside the state is valid in South Dakota if it was valid under the law of the place where contracted. The majority specifically rejected any requirement that the parties be domiciled in the foreign jurisdiction before South Dakota will recognize that jurisdiction's common-law marriage scheme.