(a) General. A common-law marriage is one considered valid under certain State laws even though there was no formal ceremony. It is a marriage between two persons free to marry, who consider themselves married, live together as man and wife, and, in some States, meet certain other requirements. We will ask for the evidence described in this section.
(b) Preferred evidence. Preferred evidence of a common-law marriage is—
(1) If both the husband and wife are alive, their signed statements and those of two blood relatives;
(2) If either the husband or wife is dead, the signed statements of the one who is alive and those of two blood relatives of the deceased person; or
(3) If both the husband and wife are dead, the signed statements of one blood relative of each;
Note:All signed statements should show why the signer believes there was a marriage between the two persons. If a written statement cannot be gotten from a blood relative, one from another person can be used instead.
(c) Other evidence of common-law marriage. If you cannot get preferred evidence of a common-law marriage, we will ask you to explain why and to give us other convincing evidence of the marriage. We may not ask you for statements from a blood relative or other person if we believe other evidence presented to us proves the common-law marriage.
Notes of Decisions
Snetsinger v. Montana Univ. Sys., 2004 MT 390 (Mont. 2004).
· cites it 2× “20 C.F.R. § 404.726 (b)(1) and (c). ¶136 Thus, it can be seen that the Court’s new “extrinsic evidence” requirement, for which it can cite no authority, is not only inconsistent with our law, but, as a practical matter, will interfere with efforts of various agencies, applying…”
Jackson v. Bowen, 690 F. Supp. 58 (D.D.C. 1988).
· cites it 2× “20 C.F.R. § 404.726 (b)(2) (1987). In this case, after hearing plaintiff’s testimony and reviewing other evidence, the AU concluded that “despite their prolonged cohabitation, the wage earner and claimant never entered into a present mutual agreement to become husband and wife,…”
Geraldine Gainey v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 299 F.3d 1004 (8th Cir. 2002).
“20 C.F.R. § 404.726 . The district court affirmed the ALJ’s determination that Geraldine failed to establish the existence of a common-law marriage because she provided no competent evidence to demonstrate that her pri- or marriage to Smith was dissolved and that she was…”
Day v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 519 F. Supp. 872 (D.S.C. 1981).
“” 20 C.F.R. § 404.726 (a). Since the plaintiff was domiciled in South Carolina when she applied for benefits, the domestic relations law of that state is the controlling law in this case.”
Conlon Ex Rel. Conlon v. Schweiker, 537 F. Supp. 158 (N.D. Tex. 1982).
“20 C.F.R. § 404.726 (1981). No evidence of this sort was introduced at any time during the proceedings on Trisha’s claim.”
Thomas v. Sullivan, 713 F. Supp. 114 (S.D.N.Y. 1989).
“Because a common law marriage — and in particular one that is not even valid — does not have the same level of formality, it can be faked more easily.”
Hill (D.N.J. 2025).
· cites it 2× “Pursuant to 20 CFR § 404.726 (b), when either the husband or wife is dead, preferred evidence of a common law marriage is “the signed statements of the one who is alive and those of two blood relatives of the deceased person.”
Ely v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin. (D. Ariz. 2020).
“See 20 C.F.R. § 404.726 . Indeed, the Administration is equipped with [a] myriad [of] internal policies for making 27 the exact factual determinations required to determine whether [Plaintiff] and 28 others similarly situated would have married their partner but for the 1…”
Sara Corcoran v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt. (MSPB 2024).
“at 58, 62 ; 20 C.F.R. § 404.726 (b)(2) (identifying types of “preferred” evidence for establishing a common-law marriage under Social Security Administration regulations, such as signed statements from blood relatives), with Allen v.”
Branch v. SSA, 2018 DNH 070 (D.N.H. 2018).
“See 20 C.F.R. § 404.726 ; see also Gainey v. Barnhart, 299 F.”
Beat v. United States, 742 F. Supp. 2d 1227 (D. Kan. 2010).
“” 20 C.F.R. § 404.726 (b)(2) & note. If such evidence is not available, under § 404.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.