## Facts

- Anne Barnett met Maurice L. Hunsaker in 1985; at the time, Anne was married to another man.
- Anne separated from her husband in December 1986 and divorced in February 1987.
- On Christmas Day 1986, after the separation, Maurice gave Anne an engagement ring and a matching wedding band and asked her to marry him.
- Anne sometimes wore the engagement ring but did not wear the wedding band because she believed a formal ceremony was required before wearing it.
- Anne and Maurice began living together in October 1987 in Maurice’s house near Toston, Montana, and they remained together there until Maurice died on September 27, 1996.
- The home’s title and mortgage were in Maurice’s name only.
- The couple displayed public signs of using the Hunsaker name, including a sign in front of the house that read “Hunsakers” and an answering-machine message recorded by Anne stating, “This is the Hunsaker residence.”
- They bought a grandfather clock with a pendulum engraved with an “H” for Hunsaker, surrounded by an “M” and an “A.”
- They maintained separate bank accounts and filed federal income tax returns separately as “single.”
- Witness testimony conflicted on whether Maurice and Anne presented themselves as husband and wife.
- They jointly held some property interests (including jointly held stock and a time-share condominium).
- On a Department of Veterans Affairs life-insurance beneficiary form, Anne was identified as Maurice’s “spouse” (Anne testified she filled in the word “spouse”).
- After Maurice’s death, Anne petitioned the District Court (First Judicial District, Broadwater County) to be appointed personal representative and to be recognized as Maurice’s common-law wife.
- The district court found Anne did not prove a common-law marriage and also found Maurice died intestate; Anne appealed the marriage ruling, and Maurice’s brother, Shorland Hunsaker, cross-appealed the intestacy determination.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court clearly erred in finding that Anne failed to prove she and Maurice entered into a valid common-law marriage under Montana law.
2. Whether the district court erred in determining that Maurice died intestate (cross-appeal).

## Decision

- The Montana Supreme Court reversed the district court’s determination that no common-law marriage existed.
- The Court held the evidence established a valid common-law marriage between Anne and Maurice, making Anne the surviving spouse for purposes of the estate.
- The Court remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, including continued probate administration in light of Anne’s status and the issues raised on cross-appeal.

## Legal Principles

- A Montana common-law marriage requires: (1) capacity to marry, (2) a present mutual agreement or consent to be husband and wife, and (3) cohabitation and public repute confirming the marriage.
- Mutual consent and marital intent may be shown by conduct and declarations; no ceremony is required.
- “Public repute” may be proved by how the couple held themselves out in their community; conflicting testimony does not defeat the claim if the overall proof shows marital holding-out.
- Separate financial arrangements and “single” tax filings are evidence the court may consider, but they are not controlling where other conduct shows an agreement to be married and public recognition of that relationship.
- On appellate review, a finding that no common-law marriage existed may be reversed if it is clearly erroneous in light of the record as a whole.

## Conclusion

The Montana Supreme Court concluded that Anne and Maurice satisfied Montana’s test for common-law marriage, based on their long cohabitation and multiple public indications of marital status, and it reversed the probate court’s contrary finding and remanded for further proceedings in the estate, including matters affected by Anne’s recognition as the surviving spouse.


In re Estate of Hunsaker, 968 P.2d 281 (1998)