Also known as: informal marriages · common-law marriage · common law marriage
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A marriage formed without statutory formalities through mutual consent, cohabitation, and public holding out as spouses. Capacity to marry must exist at formation, and an impediment later removed validates the marriage from the date of removal in most states. Recognition extends to other states even where common law marriage has been abolished.
Ike Ingram and Isabella Ingram exchanged private promises to be spouses and began living together in a shared apartment. They opened a joint bank account, used the same last name on mail, and introduced each other as married to neighbors and coworkers. When a dispute arose over spousal benefits, the court examined whether these actions satisfied the consent, cohabitation, and holding-out requirements.
Imran Iyer remained legally married to another person when he and Ivan Ivanov began cohabiting and holding themselves out as spouses. After Imran's prior marriage was dissolved, the couple continued their relationship without interruption. The court recognized their informal marriage as valid from the date the impediment was removed.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Ibrahim Iqbal and Isaac Irving formed an informal marriage in a state that still recognizes it through consent, cohabitation, and public holding out. They later moved to a state that had abolished common law marriage. The new state court treated the marriage as valid under choice-of-law principles.
After their informal marriage ended, one partner sought property division based on contributions during cohabitation. The court refused to impose marital property rules on the relationship. It held that the parties could not invoke marriage-based remedies without satisfying formal or recognized informal marriage requirements.
Two partners in a long-term cohabitation entered an oral agreement to share earnings and provide mutual support. When the relationship ended, one sought enforcement of the agreement for property and support. The court upheld the contract as enforceable independent of marital status.
A statute criminalized cohabitation by unmarried interracial couples but not by married couples. The defendants argued the law violated equal protection by targeting informal relationships. The Court struck down the statute as an unconstitutional racial classification.
The elements are an exchange of consents to be married, cohabitation as spouses, and public holding out as married through actions such as using a common last name or joint accounts. No minimum duration is required once all elements are present. Courts assess the totality of the circumstances on a case-by-case basis.
Supporting sources
Most states recognize the marriage as valid from the date the impediment is removed if the other elements were already satisfied. The validation does not relate back to the original formation date. Capacity must exist without impediment at the time of claimed formation or after removal.
Supporting sources
Yes, under choice-of-law principles a valid informal marriage created in a recognizing state remains valid in a non-recognizing state. Full faith and credit and comity doctrines generally require recognition of marriages valid where formed. The forum state applies the law of the formation state to determine validity.
Supporting sources
An express written agreement stating the parties do not intend to be married can negate the consent element. Subsequent conduct must overcome the disclaimer to establish mutual intent. Courts weigh the agreement against later actions such as holding out and financial integration.
Supporting sources
…leads couples to choose a nonmarital relationship; many unmarried couples may also incorrectly believe that the doctrine of common law marriage prevails in California, and thus that they are in fact married. Consequently we conclude that the mere fact that a couple have not participated in a valid marriage ceremony cannot serve as…