## Facts

- Walter A. Keimig and Ruth Ann (later Huss) ceremonially married in 1925 and divorced on March 21, 1935.
- On the night of the divorce, they reconciled, stayed together, returned to their prior home, and cohabited for about nine years in Atchison County, Kansas.
- During cohabitation, Walter introduced Ruth Ann as his wife; she used the Keimig name; and they were publicly regarded as husband and wife in social and business settings.
- In 1944, Ruth Ann left Walter and began living with Albert Huss in various Kansas towns, generally holding themselves out as husband and wife and using the Huss surname in property, insurance, tax, and other records.
- Walter later entered a ceremonial marriage with Goldie Keimig, executed a will naming Goldie as beneficiary and executrix, and died in 1971.
- In probate, Ruth Ann claimed she was Walter’s surviving spouse based on a common-law remarriage after the 1935 divorce and sought spousal rights in the estate.

## Issues

1. Whether Ruth Ann proved a valid common-law remarriage with Walter after their 1935 divorce, particularly a mutual present agreement to be married.
2. Whether evidence of cohabitation and holding out as husband and wife, without proof of a present marriage agreement, is sufficient to establish common-law remarriage between formerly divorced spouses.

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Ruth Ann’s claim of surviving-spouse status.
- The court held the evidence supported the finding that Ruth Ann did not prove a present marriage agreement after the divorce.
- The court treated the existence of a common-law marriage as a fact question and declined to disturb findings supported by substantial competent evidence.

## Legal Principles

- Common-law marriage in Kansas requires: (1) capacity to marry, (2) a present marriage agreement, and (3) holding out to the public as husband and wife.
- The same elements and standards apply to alleged common-law remarriage between divorced spouses; prior ceremonial marriage does not relax the proof required after divorce.
- Cohabitation and reputation or holding out, standing alone, do not establish common-law marriage without proof of a mutual, present agreement to enter the marital relationship.
- The party asserting a common-law marriage bears the burden of proving each element; appellate review defers to trial-court findings supported by substantial competent evidence.

## Conclusion

Because Ruth Ann did not carry her burden to prove that she and Walter formed a mutual present agreement to remarry after their divorce, she was not recognized as Walter’s surviving spouse, and the estate was administered consistent with Walter’s later ceremonial marriage and will.


In re Estate of Keimig, 215 Kan. 869, 528 P.2d 1228 (Kan. 1974)