## Facts

- Harold Ray Lewis and Mindy Jane Anderson married ceremonially in 1974 and divorced in 1977.
- About a year after the divorce, they resumed cohabitation in Texas (beginning in 1978) and lived together until 1998.
- During the post-divorce period, they repeatedly presented themselves as married in social and formal settings:
  - They joined a church as “Hal and Mindy Lewis.”
  - They celebrated their wedding anniversary annually.
  - They adopted two children; adoption petitions and decrees signed by both parties identified them as husband and wife (e.g., “Dr. and Mrs. Lewis,” “Harold and Mindy Lewis”).
  - They represented themselves to the children’s schools as a married couple.
- The parties maintained separate bank accounts, and Lewis denied any post-divorce agreement to remarry.
- In 1998, Anderson filed for divorce alleging an informal marriage; Lewis denied that any marriage existed.

## Issues

1. Whether legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding that the parties entered into an informal marriage after their 1977 divorce under Texas Family Code § 2.401(a)(2), as of September 21, 1982.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
- The evidence was legally sufficient for a reasonable jury to find an informal marriage, including a tacit agreement to be married inferred from conduct and representations.
- The evidence was factually sufficient; contrary proof (including Lewis’s denial and separate finances) did not render the jury’s finding clearly wrong or unjust.
- The equal-inference argument did not defeat the verdict because there was direct evidence that the parties held themselves out as currently married during the post-divorce cohabitation, including in adoption proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- An informal marriage under Texas Family Code § 2.401(a)(2) requires proof that: (1) the parties agreed to be married; (2) after the agreement they lived together in Texas as husband and wife; and (3) they represented to others that they were married.
- An agreement to be married may be proven by circumstantial evidence; a tacit agreement may be inferred from the parties’ conduct and representations, and direct evidence of an express agreement is not required.
- Formal, signed representations in legal proceedings (such as adoption filings) can be strong evidence supporting both an agreement to be married and “holding out.”
- The equal-inference rule does not apply where the record contains direct evidence of the vital fact (here, holding out a current marriage), rather than requiring jurors to guess between equally plausible inferences.
- Legal sufficiency review considers evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict; factual sufficiency review considers all evidence to determine whether the finding is clearly wrong or unjust.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the jury’s finding that the parties formed an informal marriage after their divorce, concluding that prolonged cohabitation and repeated representations of marriage—especially in adoption documents—supported a tacit agreement and satisfied Texas’s statutory elements for informal marriage.


Lewis v. Anderson, 173 S.W.3d 556 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005)