## Facts

- Barbara and Bruce Crosson married ceremonially in 1982 and divorced in June 1993.
- In August 1993, Bruce asked Barbara to “come back and be his wife,” and she moved back into his home.
- After resuming cohabitation, they shared household responsibilities and filed a joint federal income tax return for 1993.
- They wore wedding rings and represented to others that they were married.
- Both testified that, immediately after the divorce, neither had married anyone else and there was no legal impediment to remarriage.
- In October 1994, without Barbara’s knowledge, Bruce entered into a ceremonial marriage with another woman.
- Barbara filed a divorce complaint alleging a post-divorce common-law marriage and asserting adultery and bigamy.
- The trial court found Barbara failed to prove a common-law marriage and dismissed the action, reasoning that Bruce’s later ceremonial marriage rebutted any presumption arising from cohabitation.

## Issues

1. Whether Barbara proved that the parties entered into a common-law marriage after their 1993 divorce.
2. Whether Bruce’s later ceremonial marriage to another woman rebutted or negated the existence of any common-law marriage formed between Barbara and Bruce.

## Decision

- The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals reversed the dismissal.
- The court held that a common-law marriage existed between Barbara and Bruce after the 1993 divorce.
- The court held that Bruce’s later ceremonial marriage did not rebut or extinguish an already-formed common-law marriage.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with recognition of the common-law marriage.

## Legal Principles

- A common-law marriage requires: (1) capacity to marry, (2) a present mutual agreement to enter the marital relationship to the exclusion of all others, and (3) public recognition of the marriage, including cohabitation and holding out as married.
- Mutual agreement is determined from objective conduct; once the objective elements are shown, one party’s later, subjective denial of intent to be married does not defeat the marriage.
- A subsequent ceremonial marriage by one party does not retroactively negate a validly formed common-law marriage; it conflicts with the existing marriage rather than rebutting it.

## Conclusion

The appellate court held that the parties’ post-divorce objective conduct established a common-law marriage, and the husband’s later ceremonial marriage to another woman did not eliminate that marriage; dismissal was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.


Crosson v. Crosson, 668 So. 2d 868 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995)