## Facts

- Fred R. Chandler, Sr., a gas station attendant for Central Oil Corporation, Inc., was shot during a robbery at work and died on July 18, 1988.
- Fred married Noletta J. Carter on June 20, 1964; they divorced on June 1, 1973.
- Eliza Davis began living with Fred in 1969 while Fred was still married to Noletta; Eliza and Fred had a child in 1971.
- Eliza and Fred participated in a ceremonial marriage in Arkansas on July 7, 1972, when Fred was still legally married to Noletta; Eliza asserted she did not know of the existing marriage.
- After Fred’s 1973 divorce from Noletta, Eliza and Fred continued living together and held themselves out as husband and wife; Eliza claimed a valid Kansas common-law marriage arose after Fred had capacity to marry.
- Mary Glin began living with Fred in April 1982, later participated in a ceremonial marriage with him, and lived with him until his death.
- Eliza and Mary each claimed to be Fred’s surviving spouse entitled to workers’ compensation death benefits.

## Issues

1. When a later ceremonial marriage conflicts with a claimed earlier common-law marriage, how strong is the presumption favoring the later ceremonial marriage?
2. Who bears the burden to prove the invalidity of the later ceremonial marriage, and what quality of proof is required?
3. Did the administrative and district tribunals apply the correct presumption and evidentiary standard in determining the surviving spouse for death benefits?

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, which had reversed the district court’s affirmance of the administrative award to Eliza.
- The court held the later ceremonial marriage was entitled to one of the strongest presumptions known to the law.
- The court held Eliza, as the party attacking the later marriage, bore the burden to prove by clear, strong, and satisfactory (clear and convincing) evidence that a prior marriage to Fred existed and had not been dissolved.
- The court concluded the ALJ and district court failed to apply the correct presumption and burden favoring the later ceremonial marriage.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the proper presumption and evidentiary standard.

## Legal Principles

- Kansas recognizes common-law marriage upon proof of: (1) capacity to marry, (2) a present marriage agreement, and (3) public holding out as husband and wife.
- A subsequent ceremonial marriage is presumed valid, and the presumption is exceptionally strong due to the legal consequences of invalidating marital status.
- When a subsequent marriage is attacked based on an alleged prior subsisting marriage, the presumption favoring the later marriage outweighs the presumption that the earlier marriage continued.
- The party seeking to impeach the later marriage must negate every reasonable possibility of validity and prove, with evidence so cogent as to compel conviction, that the prior marriage was not dissolved.
- “Clear and convincing” describes the quality of proof: evidence that is certain, unambiguous, and persuasive, typically established within a preponderance framework but requiring heightened clarity and certainty.

## Conclusion

The court required that Fred’s later ceremonial marriage be treated as presumptively valid and placed a heavy evidentiary burden on the claimant asserting a prior undissolved common-law marriage; because the lower tribunals did not apply this framework, the determination of the surviving spouse for workers’ compensation benefits was remanded.


Chandler v. Cent. Oil Corp., 853 P.2d 649 (Kan. 1993)