Also known as: putative spouse · putative marriage · putative marriage doctrine
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A doctrine that confers the rights of a legal spouse on a person who cohabits with another in the good faith belief that a valid marriage exists even though the marriage is legally invalid. The status continues until the person acquires knowledge that the marriage is not valid and prevents acquisition of further rights. A putative spouse may obtain maintenance and an equitable share of property upon termination of the relationship subject to apportionment if a legal spouse or other putative spouses also claim rights.
Dana and Leo obtained a marriage certificate after an overnight chapel ceremony in Las Vegas and cohabited as spouses for four years while sharing finances. After Leo died the insurer discovered the officiant license had been revoked before the ceremony. Because Dana never learned of the defect during the relationship a court treats her as a putative spouse and awards her survivor benefits and maintenance rights on the same footing as a legal spouse.
Colin and Terry participated 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 held themselves out as spouses at franchise events. When the relationship ended Colin sought maintenance and a share of Terry contract bonus. A court recognizes Colin putative spouse status because his good faith belief continued until he learned of the internal non-binding description.
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 caseWilliam and Lee participated in a union hall ceremony performed by the union long-time officiant whom they believed retained authority. They cohabited for several years filed joint tax returns and held themselves out as spouses. Union newsletters and coworker jokes later indicated the officiant license had lapsed but William made no inquiry. After a workplace injury revealed the defect William claim for maintenance as a putative spouse fails because the warnings terminated his good faith belief before the settlement.
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.
The claimant must show cohabitation with another person in the good faith belief that a valid marriage existed even though the marriage was legally invalid. The status lasts until the claimant gains actual knowledge that the marriage is not valid.
Supporting sources
…the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, the legislature adopted for the first time the civil law concept of the putative spouse. The Act provides that an unmarried person may acquire the rights of a legal spouse only if he goes through a marriage ceremony and cohabits with another in the good-faith belief that he is…
…contains several definitions of different types of marriage that are, by definition, not legally recognized. For example, "putative marriage
Yes. A putative spouse acquires the rights conferred upon a legal spouse including the right to maintenance following termination of the status. The court may apportion those rights if a legal spouse or other putative spouses also assert claims.
Supporting sources
No. The doctrine focuses on the individual good faith belief of the claimant who seeks spousal-type rights. It is irrelevant whether the other party shared the belief or knew of any defect.
Supporting sources
Common law marriage requires an agreement to be married followed by cohabitation and holding out as spouses with no ceremony. The putative spouse doctrine applies when the parties participated in a ceremony that one or both believed created a valid marriage but a legal defect rendered it invalid.
Supporting sources
The status terminates immediately upon acquisition of that knowledge and prevents acquisition of any further rights from that point forward. Rights already acquired during the period of good faith belief remain enforceable.
Supporting sources