Also known as: putative marriages · putative spouse
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A marital union solemnized in due form by one or both parties but invalid due to a legal defect. A person who cohabits under a good-faith belief that the union is valid acquires the rights of a legal spouse, including maintenance, until actual knowledge of the defect terminates the status and cuts off further rights.
Dana and Leo obtained a marriage certificate after an overnight chapel ceremony in Las Vegas and then cohabited as spouses for four years while sharing finances. After Leo died, the insurer discovered that the officiant's license had been revoked months earlier. Dana had never learned of the revocation, so the court treated her as a putative spouse entitled to survivor benefits and maintenance rights on the same footing as a legal spouse.
William and Lee participated in a union hall ceremony performed by an officiant they believed retained full authority. They cohabited for several years, filed joint tax returns, and held themselves out as spouses. Union newsletters and coworker comments later indicated the officiant lacked credentials, yet William made no inquiry until after a workplace injury. The court found that William's good-faith belief had already terminated, so he could not claim maintenance as a putative spouse.
In June 1960, while students at Grinnell College in Iowa, Victoria Hewitt became pregnant by Robert Hewitt. Robert told Victoria that they were husband and wife and would live as such without a formal ceremony, and that he would share his life, future, earnings, and property with her. The parties announced to their parents that they were married and held themselves out as husband and wife thereafter. Victoria devoted her efforts to Robert's professional education in pedodontia, obtaining financial assistance from her parents, and assisted in his career by placing her payroll checks into a common fund. Three children were born to the parties during their relationship, which lasted until 1975. By that time, Robert earned over $80,000 a year and had accumulated substantial property, some held jointly and some separately. Victoria initially filed a complaint for divorce, but at a hearing on Robert's motion to dismiss, she admitted that no marriage ceremony had taken place and that the parties had never obtained a marriage license. The trial court dismissed the complaint, finding no ceremonial or common law marriage existed, and directed Victoria to make her complaint more definite regarding the property. Victoria then filed an amended complaint alleging an express oral contract to share property, an implied contract from the parties' conduct, a constructive trust based on fraudulent assurances, and unjust enrichment from her detrimental reliance. The trial court dismissed the amended complaint, finding that Illinois law and public policy require such claims to be based on a valid marriage. The appellate court reversed, and the Supreme Court of Illinois granted leave to appeal.
View caseColin and Terry exchanged vows in a publicized halftime ceremony at a charity game after team executives assured them the event would make their union legally official. They cohabited in a team-provided condominium and appeared as spouses at franchise events. Internal emails described the event as non-binding entertainment, and the couple maintained separate finances while telling friends they were only partners. The court held that the private disclaimers undermined any sustained good-faith belief, denying Colin putative-spouse rights to maintenance and property division.
In October 1964, plaintiff and defendant entered into an oral agreement. While the parties lived together, they would combine their efforts and earnings. They would share equally any and all property accumulated as a result of their efforts, whether individual or combined. They further agreed to hold themselves out to the general public as husband and wife. Plaintiff would render her services as a companion, homemaker, housekeeper, and cook to defendant. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff agreed to give up her lucrative career as an entertainer and singer. She did so to devote her full time to defendant as a companion, homemaker, housekeeper, and cook. In return, defendant agreed to provide for all of plaintiff's financial support and needs for the rest of her life. The parties lived together from October 1964 through May 1970. During this period, as a result of their efforts and earnings, they acquired in defendant's name substantial real and personal property. This included motion picture rights worth over $1 million. In May 1970, defendant compelled plaintiff to leave his household. He continued to support plaintiff until November 1971 but thereafter refused to provide further support. Plaintiff brought this action asserting two causes of action. The first, for declaratory relief, asked the court to determine her contract and property rights. The second sought to impose a constructive trust upon one half of the property acquired during the course of the relationship. Defendant answered the complaint after an unsuccessful demurrer. Following extensive discovery and pretrial proceedings, the case came to trial. When the case was called for trial, plaintiff sought leave to file an amended complaint. The trial court treated defendant's motion to dismiss as one for judgment on the pleadings. This was augmented by a stipulation that defendant's marriage to Betty Marvin did not terminate until the filing of a final decree of divorce in January 1967. The court granted the motion and entered judgment for defendant. Plaintiff moved to set aside the judgment. She asked leave to amend her complaint to allege that she and defendant reaffirmed their agreement after the divorce became final. The trial court denied the motion. Plaintiff appealed from the judgment.
View casePutative spouse status continues only while the good-faith belief in a valid marriage persists. Actual knowledge of the legal defect terminates the status and prevents acquisition of any further rights from that point forward.
Supporting sources
No. The doctrine turns on the individual claimant's own good-faith belief that a valid marriage existed. It does not require that both parties held the same belief or that the belief was mutual.
Supporting sources
Yes. A putative spouse acquires the same rights as a legal spouse, including the right to maintenance following termination of the status, even when the underlying marriage is void or voidable.
Supporting sources
No. A licensing defect is precisely the kind of hidden flaw the doctrine addresses. A claimant who participated in a ceremony, obtained a certificate, and cohabited without learning of the defect retains putative spouse status and the associated rights.
Supporting sources