## Facts

- Sandra Jennings and William M. Hurt began a relationship in New York in 1981 while Hurt was married to another woman.
- Jennings became pregnant in spring 1982, and the parties negotiated drafts of a written financial/relationship agreement addressing living arrangements and the child.
- Hurt sought a divorce in 1982 but told Jennings that pursuing a divorce did not mean he was committing to marry her; he expressed dissatisfaction with marriage.
- From October 31, 1982, to January 10, 1983, the parties lived together in South Carolina while Hurt worked there; the relationship was described as volatile.
- Hurt’s divorce became final on December 3, 1982, removing the marital impediment to a new marriage.
- Jennings claimed that during the South Carolina period Hurt stated they were “married in the eyes of God” and referenced a “spiritual marriage,” and that he once referred to her as his “wife” in a call to her obstetrician.
- On December 27, 1982, Hurt executed a written paternity acknowledgment.
- Draft agreements continued to refer to a possible future marriage (e.g., “whether or not the parties hereafter marry each other”).
- Most witness testimony and documents indicated the parties did not hold themselves out as married and were not perceived as husband and wife; other documents listed Hurt as single and Jennings as a friend.
- The parties separated in 1984; Jennings later sought a declaration that a common-law marriage had been formed in South Carolina.

## Issues

1. Whether the parties formed a valid common-law marriage in South Carolina during their cohabitation there, such that New York would recognize the marriage.
2. Whether, given that the relationship began with a marital impediment, the evidence showed a fundamental change after the impediment was removed sufficient to support a common-law marriage.
3. Whether the proof established mutual intent by both parties to enter a marriage contract under South Carolina law.

## Decision

- The trial court rejected Jennings’s claim and held that no South Carolina common-law marriage was established.
- The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the record did not support Jennings’s assertion that she was Hurt’s common-law wife.
- The appellate court relied on the absence of persuasive evidence of mutual intent to marry, the lack of a fundamental post-divorce change in the relationship, and objective conduct inconsistent with marriage.
- The court treated isolated “wife” references and alleged spiritual-marriage statements as insufficient when contradicted by documents, witness accounts, and ongoing references to possible future marriage.
- Credibility problems in Jennings’s proof supported the factfinder’s rejection of her account.
- Leave to appeal was denied, leaving the affirmance in place.

## Legal Principles

- New York does not create common-law marriages but recognizes a common-law marriage if it is valid under the law of the jurisdiction where it was allegedly formed.
- Under South Carolina law, a party asserting common-law marriage must prove mutual intent by both parties to enter a marriage contract.
- When the relationship begins while one party is married, the proponent must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the relationship underwent a fundamental change after the impediment was removed.
- Objective conduct and documentary evidence (how the parties described their status to others, how they documented their relationship, and whether they held themselves out as spouses) are central to assessing intent.
- Isolated, informal, or spiritual statements are insufficient to establish a legal marriage when the broader course of conduct and documentation indicates no marital commitment.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed dismissal of the claimed marital status because the evidence did not show mutual intent to be married under South Carolina law and did not show a fundamental change in the relationship after Hurt’s divorce; New York therefore had no valid out-of-state common-law marriage to recognize.


Jennings v. Hurt, 160 A.D.2d 576, 554 N.Y.S.2d 220 (1st Dep’t 1990)