## Facts

- Edi L. Hogsett and Marcia E. Neale were in a committed same-sex relationship from 2001 to 2014 and cohabited while sharing some financial responsibilities.
- After the relationship ended, they negotiated a separation agreement allocating property and debts; the agreement described them as being in a common law marriage.
- The parties initially filed a joint dissolution petition, but the petition was dismissed after a clerk refused to process it without a marriage license.
- Hogsett later filed a new dissolution petition alleging a common law marriage and seeking to enforce the separation agreement in the dissolution case.
- Neale denied any marriage existed and moved to dismiss.
- Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court found Hogsett failed to prove a common law marriage, crediting Neale’s testimony that she did not believe in marriage and never intended to be married.
- The court of appeals affirmed, applying the then-prevailing common law marriage framework.

## Issues

1. Whether Colorado’s common law marriage standard should be refined in light of modern social and legal changes, including recognition of same-sex marriage.
2. Whether, under the refined standard, Hogsett proved the existence of a common law marriage with Neale.

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court refined the common law marriage inquiry to focus on whether the couple mutually intended to enter the legal and social institution of marriage, followed by conduct manifesting that mutual agreement.
- The Court held that traditional indicia (e.g., cohabitation, community reputation, joint finances) remain relevant but are not dispositive and must be evaluated in context.
- Applying the refined approach and deferring to the trial court’s credibility determinations, the Court concluded no common law marriage existed because the evidence supported a finding that Neale did not intend to be married.
- The Court affirmed the court of appeals, leaving in place dismissal of the dissolution petition.

## Legal Principles

- A common law marriage may be established by mutual consent or agreement to enter the legal and social institution of marriage, followed by conduct manifesting that mutual agreement.
- The central question is mutual intent to be spouses in a committed relationship of mutual support and obligation; unilateral belief or intent is insufficient.
- Evidence of an express agreement to marry is especially probative; absent an express agreement, mutual agreement may be inferred from conduct.
- Conduct-based factors associated with marriage may support or weaken an inference of mutual intent depending on context; no single factor or form of manifestation is required.
- Appellate courts generally defer to trial-court factual findings and credibility assessments when evaluating whether the record proves mutual intent.

## Conclusion

Colorado clarified that common law marriage turns on mutual intent to enter marriage, proven by words and context-sensitive conduct, and affirmed that no marriage existed where the trial court reasonably found only one partner intended to be spouses.


In re Marriage of Hogsett & Neale, 2021 CO 1, 478 P.3d 713 (Colo. 2021)