In the Interest of the Estate of Douglas Allan Archibald

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: March 8, 2023
• Docket: 21-1863
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 21-1863 Filed March 8, 2023

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF DOUGLAS ALLAN ARCHIBALD, Deceased.

HEATHER ELLEN WHITMAN, Petitioner-Appellant,

vs.

JENNIFER SUSAN ARCHIBALD, Respondent-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Mary E. Chicchelly,

Judge.

Heather Whitman appeals from a district court ruling on her petition for

declaratory judgment seeking to establish a common law marriage to Douglas

Archibald. AFFIRMED.

Peter C. Riley of Tom Riley Law Firm, P.L.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellant.

M. Victoria Cole of M. Victoria Cole Law Firm, P.C., Cedar Rapids, for

appellee.

Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Ahlers and Buller, JJ. Chicchelly,

J., takes no part. 2

VAITHESWARAN, Presiding Judge.

Heather Whitman filed a petition in probate court seeking a declaration that

“she [was] the common law spouse of the deceased, Douglas Allan Archibald.”

Archibald’s daughter, as administrator of Archibald’s estate, filed an answer and

counterclaim. She alleged Archibald was “divorced and unmarried” at the time of

his death and Whitman was no more than his “on and off girlfriend.” She further

alleged that she and her brother were the only heirs to the estate, Whitman took

possession of property belonging to the estate, the estate suffered damages as a

result, and the estate was entitled to additional attorney fees based on having to

defend the action.

Following trial, the district court concluded there was no common law

marriage between Whitman and Archibald. The court denied the declaratory

judgment petition. The court awarded the estate $4962.48 on its counterclaim.

On appeal, Whitman only challenges the district court’s conclusion that she

failed to prove the existence of a common law marriage. Our review of the issue

is de novo. See In re Marriage of Martin, 681 N.W.2d 612, 616 (Iowa 2004).

“Three elements must exist to create a common law marriage: ‘(1) [present]

intent and agreement . . . to be married by both parties; (2) continuous

cohabitation; and (3) public declaration that the parties are husband and wife.’” Id.

at 617 (alterations in original) (quoting In re Marriage of Winegard, 278 N.W.2d

505, 510 (Iowa 1979)). The district court concluded Whitman met her burden of

proving the second element—continuous cohabitation with Archibald “dating back

to approximately December 2009.” The court concluded she failed to prove the

first and third elements. 3

The first element—present intent and agreement to be married—may be

proved by evidence of “[t]he conduct of the parties and their general community

reputation.” Id. The district court found “inconsistent” evidence on this point. The

court stated Whitman’s “witnesses all testified that they thought [Whitman] and

[Archibald] were married,” yet Whitman and Archibald “executed numerous

documents . . . holding themselves out as single parties.” In the end, the court

found the testimony of Whitman’s witnesses was “completely undermined by”

Whitman’s concession that she “would have formalized [the marriage] if it would

not have jeopardized her Medicaid eligibility.” The district court’s findings are

supported by the record.

Whitman testified she “relied on Medicaid . . . to fill prescriptions and any

type of therapist appointments.” She spoke to Archibald about formalizing her

relationship by obtaining a marriage license but found “a hindrance” in the form of

her “medications and medical bills.” She said “it just wasn’t feasible.” On further

questioning, she twice affirmed that she would have married Archibald but for the

effect on her Medicaid eligibility. Those admissions alone negated her claim of a

present intent and agreement to enter into a marriage with Archibald. See In re

Marriage of O’Connor-Sherrets & Sherrets, No. 08-0293, 2008 WL 4877763, at *2

(Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2008) (stating affidavit attesting to married status that was

signed in order to obtain a family health insurance policy at no cost was signed

“solely for personal benefit” and was not evidence of a common law marriage); cf.

In re Marriage of Baccam & Onmanivong, No. 17-1252, 2018 WL 5850224, at *2

(Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 7, 2018) (“The acts of signing [an affidavit attesting to their

marital status] and adding [the woman] to [the man’s] health insurance policy 4

demonstrate both the elements of mutual agreement and public declaration.”).

When combined with references in Whitman’s medical records to her “single”

status as well as her tax filings as a single person, we conclude Whitman lacked a

present intent and agreement to be married. See, e.g., Martin, 681 N.W.2d at 618

(noting the parties at times “declared themselves to be single or divorced, and

otherwise portrayed themselves to others in a manner inconsistent with marriage”

and stating “[t]he fluctuating status of their relationship was, from the beginning,

largely based on personal convenience or benefit, which is inconsistent with the

concept of marriage”); In re Est. of Soucek, No. 99-1306, 2000 WL 1724874, at *1

(Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2000) (noting one party “filed his annual tax returns as a

single taxpayer and claimed only himself as an exemption” and the other party did

not list herself as a spouse on an application she filed).

The third element—a public declaration of marital status—“is considered to

be the acid test of a common law marriage.” Martin, 681 N.W.2d at 618 (internal

citations omitted). The district court found “the only proof that” Whitman brought

“to this notion of public declaration” was that “their circles of friends generally

thought the couple was married, that [Archibald] referred to [Whitman] as his ‘old

lady’ (not specifically as his ‘wife’), that [Archibald] often wore a ring on his left ring

finger along with three pictures of him showing the same, and two envelopes

addressed by [the administrator’s] daughter in approximately 2012 to ‘Papa and

Mema.’” The court found this evidence insufficient to establish a public declaration.

Whitman appears to argue the friends’ testimony suffices to prove the

element. But the friends’ testimony could be taken in more ways than one and had

to be considered in conjunction with Whitman’s intent. For example, the “old lady” 5

reference did not necessarily mean “wife.” See In re Est. of Malli, 149 N.W.2d 155,

156 (Iowa 1967) (noting decedent sometimes referred to a woman “as the ‘old lady’

. . . and sometimes as ‘my wife’” and affirming a conclusion that there was no

common law marriage). While another witness testified Whitman and Archibald

wore rings and Whitman told her she was married to him, the witness was unaware

of other references the couple made to being single, divorced, and

boyfriend/girlfriend. See In re Marriage of Heide, No. 22-0001, 2022 WL 5067201,

at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 5, 2022) (stating the wearing of rings did “not overcome

the evidence” showing the absence of an intent to initiate a common law marriage).

Whitman’s clearly expressed intent to remain single overrode the testimony of

these and other witnesses.

Whitman further contends the court “focused primarily on the non-public

declarations in the medical and governmental records.” Public or not, the

documents reflected Whitman’s intent and were appropriately considered in

determining whether there was a common law marriage. See Coleman v. Graves,

122 N.W.2d 853, 855 (Iowa 1963) (noting woman did not use decedent’s last name

on medical records and listed her occupation as housekeeper, not spouse, of the

decedent).

On our de novo review, we agree with the district court that Whitman and

Archibald did not have a common law marriage.

AFFIRMED.