## Facts

- Bryan Rudolph Wagner died intestate.
- Elizabeth Becker petitioned for appointment as personal representative, claiming she was Wagner’s surviving spouse based on an alleged Idaho common-law marriage.
- Wagner’s mother, Terry Lynn Hall, objected, disputing the existence of any common-law marriage and Becker’s priority in estate administration.
- Becker and Wagner cohabited for several years but never obtained a marriage license or held a formal ceremony.
- They generally maintained separate finances, including separate bank accounts and separate state and federal tax returns.
- Evidence supporting Becker included testimony that some acquaintances believed the couple was married and that Becker sometimes used Wagner’s surname socially.
- Evidence supporting Hall included financial separation and inconsistent references to Becker as a spouse in medical and employment records.
- The magistrate court found Becker did not prove a common-law marriage; the district court reversed after re-evaluating the evidence; Hall appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial, competent evidence supported the magistrate court’s finding that Becker failed to prove a common-law marriage.
2. Whether the district court, acting in its appellate capacity, erred by reweighing evidence and substituting its own factual and credibility determinations for the magistrate’s.

## Decision

- The Idaho Supreme Court reversed the district court and reinstated the magistrate court’s determination that no common-law marriage existed.
- The Court held the magistrate’s findings were supported by substantial, competent evidence.
- The Court held the district court exceeded its appellate role by reweighing conflicting evidence and reassessing credibility.

## Legal Principles

- To establish an Idaho common-law marriage (pre-abolition), the proponent must prove: (1) capacity to marry, (2) mutual present consent to enter a marital relationship, and (3) cohabitation with public recognition of the relationship as a marriage.
- Common-law marriage must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.
- On appellate review of a magistrate’s factual findings, the reviewing court must uphold findings supported by substantial, competent evidence and must not reweigh evidence or substitute its view of witness credibility.
- The existence of evidence supporting a different result does not justify reversal if the trier of fact’s findings are reasonably supported by substantial, competent evidence.

## Conclusion

The court reinstated the magistrate’s ruling that Becker was not Wagner’s surviving spouse because the record contained substantial, competent evidence supporting the finding that Becker did not clearly and convincingly prove mutual marital consent and consistent public recognition, and because the district court improperly reweighed the evidence on appeal.


In re Estate of Wagner, 893 P.2d 211 (Idaho 1995)