Common law marriage is a legal concept that recognizes a couple as married without the need for a formal ceremony or marriage license. It typically arises when a couple lives together for a certain period of time and holds themselves out as married, presenting themselves to others as spouses. In common law marriage states, these couples are treated legally as if they had undergone a formal marriage ceremony.
However, New York does not recognize common law marriage. This means that even if a couple lives together for an extended period and behaves as if they are married, they are not considered legally married under New York law. In New York, a valid marriage requires a formal marriage ceremony performed by an authorized officiant and the issuance of a marriage license.
In Farre v. Lours, 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 33963, a plaintiff brought forth various claims against the father of her children, seeking financial relief and asserting rights related to their shared assets and living arrangements. The case involved complex legal arguments surrounding the nature of their relationship, financial contributions, and promises made during their partnership.
Background Facts
The legal dispute involves a plaintiff who alleged a 17-year romantic partnership with the defendant, during which they had three children. Despite never formally marrying, they presented themselves as spouses and shared a household. The defendant, a high-earning professional in the finance industry, accumulated significant wealth, including multiple properties such as homes in Manhattan and Long Island. Throughout their relationship, the plaintiff made substantial sacrifices, including giving up career opportunities and contributing financially to household expenses and renovations. In 2020, the defendant initiated a relationship with another woman and informed the plaintiff that their shared assets, including the homes, were solely his property.
Feeling betrayed and disadvantaged, the plaintiff brought forth several legal claims against the defendant, seeking financial relief and asserting rights related to their shared assets and living arrangements.
Issue
The core issue revolved around the validity of the plaintiff’s claims, which included allegations of fraud, constructive fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and requests for child support and custody.
Holding
The court dismissed the majority of the plaintiff’s claims, including those related to fraud, constructive trust, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty. The court ruled that New York State does not recognize common law marriage, and without evidence of a formal agreement or financial contribution, the plaintiff’s claims lacked legal merit. Additionally, the court determined that child support and custody matters fell under the jurisdiction of the Family Court, not the Supreme Court where the case was filed.
Rationale
The court’s decision to dismiss the majority of the plaintiff’s claims was grounded in established legal principles and precedents. Firstly, the court ruled that New York State does not recognize common law marriage, meaning that without evidence of a formal agreement or financial contribution from the plaintiff, her claims lacked legal merit. While unmarried couples may enter into contracts concerning the distribution of assets, such agreements must be explicit and specific, which was not the case here.
Additionally, the court emphasized the importance of the statute of frauds, which requires certain agreements, including those related to real estate, to be in writing to be enforceable. The plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence of a written agreement or financial contribution towards the purchase of the properties in question. Furthermore, the court did not make a ruling related to child support and child custody. Instead, it determined that these issues fell under the jurisdiction of the Family Court. The court noted that since there was a pending paternity petition in Family Court, any matters concerning child support and custody should be adjudicated there. Therefore, the court did not make any decisions regarding child support or child custody but rather deferred these issues to the Family Court for resolution.
Conclusion
In navigating the complexities of family law, a knowledgeable attorney can provide invaluable support and advocate for your best interests. Whether you’re seeking resolution in child custody matters or equitable distribution of assets, having skilled legal representation is essential. Stephen Bilkis & Associates offers compassionate yet assertive advocacy to help you achieve a favorable outcome in your case. Don’t face these challenges alone—contact us today to schedule a consultation and take the first step toward resolving your family law issues.