## Facts

- Nana Stein lived with John A. Stein in his Kansas City, Missouri apartment for about fifteen months beginning around September 1978.
- Nana and John were not ceremonially married, but they held themselves out as husband and wife both before and after the key events in dispute.
- In April 1979, Nana and John took a three-week bus tour through several eastern states, including Pennsylvania.
- Nana claimed that, during one night in Philadelphia, she and John exchanged rings and marriage vows and thereby formed a common-law marriage recognized under Pennsylvania law.
- Missouri did not permit common-law marriage for marriages “hereafter contracted,” while Pennsylvania recognized common-law marriage.
- In proceedings after John’s death, Nana sought to establish that she was John’s surviving spouse in order to receive statutory probate allowances.
- At the probate hearing, Missouri’s Deadman’s Statute limited Nana’s ability to testify about the alleged exchange of vows, though other testimony described the claimed event and the couple’s conduct.
- The probate court found that Nana and John were not married and denied her applications for allowances; Nana appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Missouri will recognize an alleged common-law marriage said to have been formed in Pennsylvania during a temporary trip, when both parties were Missouri residents and domiciliaries, for purposes of surviving-spouse probate allowances.

## Decision

- The Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, affirmed the probate court’s judgment denying Nana’s claim.
- The court held that Missouri will not recognize a common-law marriage allegedly formed in another state by Missouri domiciliaries during a brief sojourn, even if the other state would treat the relationship as a valid common-law marriage.
- Because Missouri would not recognize the alleged marriage, Nana was not treated as John’s surviving spouse and was not entitled to the requested probate allowances.

## Legal Principles

- Missouri law provides that “common law marriages hereafter contracted shall be null and void.” § 451.040.5, RSMo 1978.
- Missouri courts may refuse to recognize an out-of-state common-law marriage claim when recognition would conflict with Missouri’s strong statutory rule barring common-law marriage for its residents.
- A temporary visit to a state recognizing common-law marriage does not allow Missouri domiciliaries to create a marriage that Missouri will recognize upon their return.
- The court relied on Hesington v. Estate of Hesington, 640 S.W.2d 824 (Mo. App. S.D. 1982), treating it as controlling on Missouri’s refusal to recognize a common-law marriage claim by Missouri residents based on events in a common-law-marriage state.
- Where the parties’ domicile remains Missouri and their contact with the other state is only a short trip, Missouri applies its statutory rule to deny recognition without needing to decide whether the alleged conduct satisfied the other state’s common-law marriage requirements.

## Conclusion

Stein v. Stein holds that Missouri domiciliaries cannot obtain surviving-spouse status in Missouri probate by claiming they formed a common-law marriage during a brief trip to Pennsylvania; Missouri’s statute rendering common-law marriages “null and void” bars recognition, so the claimant was not entitled to spousal allowances from the estate.


Stein v. Stein, 641 S.W.2d 856 (1982)