## Facts

- A. Marion Stone III and Susan B. Thompson began a romantic relationship in the 1980s, later cohabited, raised two children, and jointly managed rental-property ventures for about two decades.
- After the relationship ended, Stone filed an action in family court seeking a declaration that the parties were common-law married, along with divorce-related relief and equitable distribution.
- Thompson denied any marriage, asserted counterclaims, and sought bifurcation so the court would first decide whether a common-law marriage existed.
- Following a lengthy bifurcated trial with extensive testimonial and documentary evidence, the family court found the parties intended to be married and held themselves out as married beginning in 1989, concluding a common-law marriage existed.
- Thompson appealed; the Supreme Court of South Carolina took the case to resolve both the merits of the marriage determination and broader questions about the continued recognition of common-law marriage.

## Issues

1. Whether South Carolina should continue to recognize the formation of new common-law marriages.
2. Whether, under the governing standard, Stone proved by the requisite evidentiary burden that the parties mutually assented to be married at common law.
3. Whether an attorney’s-fee award to Stone could stand if the marriage finding was reversed.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of South Carolina prospectively abolished common-law marriage, holding that going forward a valid marriage in South Carolina requires a license.
- For alleged common-law marriages formed before the decision, the Court refined the analysis and required clear and convincing evidence of mutual assent to marry.
- Applying that standard, the Court reversed the family court’s finding that Stone and Thompson were common-law married because the evidence did not clearly and convincingly establish mutual assent.
- The Court also reversed the related award of attorney’s fees to Stone.

## Legal Principles

- New common-law marriages may not be formed in South Carolina after July 24, 2019; a marriage license is required for a valid marriage.
- For pre-decision claims, a party asserting common-law marriage must prove mutual assent to be married by clear and convincing evidence.
- Cohabitation, long-term partnership, shared finances, and community reputation are circumstantial evidence and are not dispositive; conflicting formal records (including legal and tax documents) may defeat an inference of marriage.
- When the predicate finding of marriage is reversed, fee awards dependent on marital status or success on that claim must also be reversed.

## Conclusion

The court ended the future formation of common-law marriages in South Carolina and held that existing claims require clear and convincing proof of mutual assent; because Stone failed to meet that burden, the parties were not married and Stone’s attorney’s-fee award was vacated.


Stone v. Thompson, 833 S.E.2d 266 (S.C. 2019)