Utah v' Holm 2006 WL 1319595 Supreme Ct' of Utah, 51606

1
Utah v. Holm2006 WL 1319595Supreme Ct. of Utah,
5/16/06

• Facts Rodney Holm legally marries Suzie Stubbs
  in 1987.
• Later Religious marriage ceremony with Wendy
  Holm.
• Later Religious marriage ceremony with Ruth
  Holms, age 16, and Suzies sister.
• 2003 Rodney Holm charged with various crimes,
  including bigamy.

2
Utah bigamy statute

• 76-7-101. Bigamy--Defense
• (1) A person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing
  he has a husband or wife or knowing the other
  person has a husband or wife, the person purports
  to marry another person or cohabits with another
  person.(2) Bigamy is a felony of the third
  degree.(3) It shall be a defense to bigamy
  that the accused reasonably believed he and the
  other person were legally eligible to remarry.

3
Utah Supreme Court

• Affirms conviction for bigamy
• We hold that the term marry as used in the
  bigamy statute, includes both legally recognized
  marriages and those that are not
  state-sanctioned because (plain meaning,
  language and policy.

4
Marriage in England pre-1753

• Three forms of marriageall equally valid.
• 1) formal ceremony in presence of priest
• 2)present agreement to be married
• 3) a future agreement to be married and
  intercourse,

5

• What do you need generally for a common law
  marriage?
• Four elements 1) capacity to enter the marital
  contract
• 2) present agreement to be married
• 3) cohabitation
• 4) openly holding out as husband and wife

6
In re the estate of Hulett69 N.W. 31 (1896)

• Marriage is a civil contract, to the validity of
  which the consent of parties able to contract is
  all that is required by natural or public law.
• If cohabitation follows, it adds nothing in law,
  although it may be evidence of marriage. It is
  mutual, present consent, lawfully expressed,
  which makes the marriage

7
Minn. Stat. 518.055

• Any person who has cohabited with another to whom
  the person is not legally married in the good
  faith belief that the person was married to the
  other is a putative spouseAcquires rights
  conferred upon legal spouse, including right to
  maintenanceCourts shall apportion property,
  maintenance and support rights among the
  claimants.

8
Problem 1, page 245

• 1956-Irene and Bill marry
• 1961-Irene and Bill separate
• 1965-Irene begins living with Tom, has 3
  children.
• 1967-Bill ceremoniously marries Ethel in PA
• 1982-Bill dies in a car accident

9

• The law presumes morality and not immorality,
  marriage and not concubinage, legitimacy and not
  bastardy. . .

10
Marvin

• Two conflicting principles in California 1)
  Nonmarital partners may contract concerning the
  ownership of property 2) Contracts between
  nonmarital property are unenforceable if made in
  contemplation of or involved in an illicit
  relationship. This is virtually all agreements.
• Court adopts narrower and more precise standard
  Contract between nonmarital partners is
  unenforceable only to the extent that it
  explicitly rests upon the immoral and illicit
  consideration of meretricious sexual services.
• Courts will enforce the contract unless expressly
  and inseparably based on the illicit
  consideration of sexual services.

11
Implied contract in law

• Damages based on quantum meruit
• Law imputes the existence of a contract based on
  one partys having performed services under
  circumstances in which the parties must have
  understood and intended compensation to be paid.
• Elements the recipient 1) acquiesced in the
  provision of services
• 2) was aware that the provider expected to get
  paid
• 3) was unjustly enriched thereby.

12
Implied contract in fact

• Implied contract in law---Really no contract at
  all. Its a legal fiction described as an
  obligation imposed by law to do justice even
  though it is clear that no promise was ever made
  or intended.
• Recovery is for Unjust enrichment

13
Elements

• 1) lack of adequate remedy at law
• 2) benefit conferred upon the defendant by the
  plaintiff
• 3) defendants appreciation of the benefit (the
  enrichment)
• 4) acceptance and retention of the benefit under
  circumstances that make is inequitable for the
  defendant to do so without paying for it (the
  injustice.) That is fraud, duress, wrong, or
  violation of a confidential or fiduciary
  relationship.

14
Website for power points

• http//www.law.umn.edu/current/summerschool/Family
  Law.html

15
Minn. Stat. 513.075

• If sexual relations are contemplated, a contract
  between man and woman who are living together in
  this state out of wedlock is only enforceable
  concerning property and financial relations of
  the parties if written and signed and enforcement
  sough after termination of the relationship.

16
Minn. Stat. 513.076

• Unless such contract courts must dismiss any
  actions by cohabitants to any claim to the
  earnings and property of the other individual if
  based on the fact that individuals lived together
  in contemplation of sexual relations and out of
  wedlock.

17
Palmen facts

• 1985 Schneider and Palmen begin living
  together as unmarried couple.
• 1987 Both agree to build a cabin on Palmens
  land in Wisconsin. Land always titled in
  Palmens name.
• 1987-1996 Cabin under construction
• 8/3/96 They separate
• 9/30/96 He dies

18
Blacks Law

• MERETRICIOUSmeretricious (mer-ltltschwagtgt-trish-ltlt
  schwagtgts), adj. 1. Involving prostitution lt a
  meretricious encountergt. 2. (Of a romantic
  relationship) involving either unlawful sexual
  connection or lack of capacity on the part of one
  party lta meretricious marriagegt. 3. Superficially
  attractive but fake nonetheless alluring by
  false show ltmeretricious advertising claimsgt.

19
Problem 1, p. 266

• Harry and Margaret -7 year intimate relationship,
  no cohabitation.
• She sues at the breakup on an express oral
  contract that in exchange for being his
  hostess/companion he would support her for life.
• What if no cohabitation but stayed under the same
  roof four days a week?

20
Problem 2

• 1990-Wendy (single) and Max (married) begin
  living together, start a business, business
  titled in her name, he provides the , she is the
  bookkeeper.
• 1997-Wendy quits working, transfers all business
  assets to Max.
• 2000-Maxs wife dies.
• 2006-Wendy is ill, hospital wants to recover bill
  from Max.

21
Minn. Stat. 518.06

• A dissolution of a marriage shall be granted by a
  county or district court when the court finds
  that there has been an irretrievable breakdown of
  the marriage relationship.

22
Minn. Stat. 518.13, subd 2

• A finding of irretrievable breakdown under this
  subdivision is a determination that there is no
  reasonable prospect of reconciliation. The
  finding must be supported by evidence that (i)
  the parties have lived separate and apart for a
  period of not less than 180 days immediately
  preceding the commencement of the proceeding, or
  (ii) there is serious marital discord adversely
  affecting the attitude of one or both of the
  parties toward the marriage.