S.B. 110 Marriage Amendments: transcript

Thank you. I'm in a very precarious situation. I've been in an emergency court hearing since two 30. I missed almost all the floor votes. We took testimony from the husband and wife. It's an emergency custody hearing. The judge just took it under advisement. He's gonna come back anywhere in the next five to 15 minutes to rule. I'm gonna have to step out for a moment when he rules. I think that'll be short. Um, but I'll, I'll start my presentation and maybe we can get to the public comment. So, um, back in the wild, wild West, we started Rec Utah and almost every other state started recognizing common law marriage because sometimes it was a full day's horse ride to the justice of the peace. And people started shacking up together and they started having kids. And they didn't want the kids to be viewed as the B word, and they didn't want people saying that the couple was living in sin. And so we started this, um, and most of the states did. And then in 1925, I think this is a fascinating history, Utah did away with it because by 1925, people could get married, uh, if they wanted to get married, they didn't have to play this legal fiction that we're gonna pretend like you were married even though you were never married. And then in 1987, and I had to call Lyle Hilliard to get the history, they brought it back. They resurrected it for one reason. The legislature was concerned that two single people sharing expenses could both qualify for welfare. Where if they had been, if they were deemed as married with their joint income and their shared expenses, they wouldn't qualify. So the legislature had this brilliant idea, we're gonna resurrect this ancient doctrine called common law marriage, and we're gonna crack down on welfare fraud. Well, that never happened. Never once was it used for that purpose. Um, however, creative attorneys have found a lot of other ways to use this. And you'll hear, you know, especially from immigration attorneys say, well, gosh, this is a useful tool in our tool belt. Um, but the issue is, is this is a legal fiction. And, um, either you're married or you're not married. Uh, there's no other area of the law, uh, that allows you to go back in time and pretend like someone did something that they didn't do. And I'll give you a couple examples. If, um, if someone died and the wife says, gosh, my husband always intended to buy health insurance, never got around to it, but always meant to. So let me, let me pay the premium for a couple months or a couple years and let me get my million dollars. 'cause that was my husband's, uh, will wish and intent. And, and look at here, here's, here's a note of my birthday where he promised me a million dollars health insurance. We don't say, okay, all right, well, that's what he meant to do and he's dead now. But this is what we do with common law marriage. It's, it's an absolute fiction. Um, it's not real. It's, it's a, it's a make believe pretend concept. Another example might be a boy down the road who lost his father. And this grandpa always took him fishing and always said he was going to adopt him and leave him his cabin or whatever. And then he dies. We don't let him go back in time and adopt this boy and, and let him inherit the cabin because he didn't do it during his life. So we have this archaic doctrine, uh, where we pretend people were married. And, and by the way, this only happens either one, if there's a death of somebody and the couple, and the, and the surviving spouse wants the benefits of being married or two, if, if the couples live together usually. And there's a breakup. And now, uh, one of them wants the, the, the relationship recognized as a marriage because they want equity in the house or they want inheritance rights or something like that. And the last thing I'm gonna say, I'm gonna cut, kind of cut this short, um, is when you marry someone, you take on a certain number of legal obligations and you also get in exchange some benefits. What common law marriage allows is people to escape all of the obligations on the front end and then cash, you know, hit this button, this legal anomaly button, and try to cash in on all of the benefits on the backend. The reason I was asked to bring this bill, which I think is wrong, the reason I was asked to bring this bill is because I've had attorneys in the bar, um, in the family law bar say, you know, we have more and more couples getting divorced and let's say they got married five years ago, but they lived together for six years before that. And oftentimes one of them is saying, well, I want 11 years of alimony. And they'd say, well, you're only married for five. Well, I could bring a common law marriage action, and if I was successful, then I could get 11 years of alimony and not five. We don't usually give alimony for five year marriages. And this is being threatened, almost never actually executed, but threatened enough that it makes divorce cases harder to settle, which means more than go to trial, which adds to the backlog in our courts and adds the the need for more judges. And, and then you just ask yourself, why do, why are we playing this game and letting people pretend like they were married when they actually never got married? And that concludes my presentation and the judge still isn't back.

Representative Miller, Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I've got two questions. Uh, Senator, you practice family law? Yes.

And then I don't, yes.

Uh, how often do you see, um, either a party successfully or at least attempt to bring a common law action in in, in your experience? Is there, is it a very common thing or is it rare?

I think it's threatened more than it's brought. And when it's brought, a lot of those cases will settle. I think it's very, very difficult with our current statute to prove it, but that's why people threaten it without bringing it because they can try to extort more money, um, as I explained. But I, I will agree, it's rarely used, but then I, I'm just asking myself why do we even allow it? So,

Uh, and my my follow up question, you mentioned that, uh, there's a handy in immigration cases. Can, can you articulate how, how a common law claim can be relevant in a, in an immigration claim?

Well, you could have someone, and, and I've researched this a little bit, you could have somebody trying to, um, say that they're married or bring over a spouse successfully for asylum and say, well, gosh, we were married, but you know, in our country, all those records were destroyed or we don't have access to them. And so then the government would usually say, well, fill out an affidavit, show us your pictures, and all that stuff. Um, so there is a process for that, but it's, uh, apparently it's easier, uh, to bring other people over if, um, if, uh, someone in the country, um, can file a common law marriage action and try to convince a judge to recognize a marriage that may or may not have happened in another country.

Those answers my questions. Thank you, Senator.

Uh, my name is Danny Bordeaux and I'm representing myself today. I, um, I specialize in family law policy and we are all in favor of eliminating common law marriage. However, this is a law as Senator Weiler pointed out, that has been relied upon since the late eighties. And there are still people out there who are relying upon it. One of the reasons that we are against common law marriage is because we know that those who are legally and lawfully wed under the law separate from common law marriage, are more likely to last. There is a lower divorce rate and they are more likely to support the family. So the people who are going to be harmed by this are going to be primarily women and children. Um, but we're not opposed to eliminating common law marriage. What we would like to do, what we would like to see is that those who have already been relying, relying, relying upon it, sorry, would be allowed up to a certain date to still have that claim. So instead of saying after May of 2027, no one can claim that anymore, I would like it to say something like those only those who have been relying upon it prior to that date can, can file a petition. That being said, it's very hard to prove when you look at what common law marriage is you're looking at, you have to show that you've been holding yourselves out as, as spouses that you've been living fulfilling those obligations and doing everything as if you are married, as if you are a family. There aren't children usually involved in this type of thing. And so I would like to not see the rug pulled out from those who have already been relying upon it, but eliminate it going forward and, and let that education be brought to people in a fair manner. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for your testimony. Just a couple of questions. So when you say that this will prime Mar merrily harm women and children, can you suss that out for me a little bit more? Um, I am just unclear on why you have asserted that.

Sure. So as, um, my experience has been, and it's kind of pretty well known that in Utah primarily that it is usually when Senator Weiler was referring to alimony. It's primarily women who, who end up getting alimony, um, in, in, in marriage cases. But even so, they don't automatically get it up to the number of years that they were married. They're allowed to get it, they're allowed to, to try to get it up to the number of years that their marriage, but the courts usually don't even do that. Um, the second part of it is the children is when you have children in, whether it's a common law marriage or in a regular marriage, uh, and, and there's a divorce or a breakup, child support is nowhere near enough to help support those children. I mean, it helps, obviously it's better than nothing, but it is not enough. And so often when the courts do consider alimony, they consider whether there are children that need that additional support. That's part of one of the considerations of alimony. And so without even allowing parties that were, would be part of a common law marriage to even petition a court, then they can't even, that can't even be considered. It's like, it's like as if there was never any tie whatsoever. You're you're, you're apart now. You were never married under this law. And so there's no recourse for anything.

Okay. Um, I get the second part of your question. What am I speaking against? What, what I would like to see is, so right now the effective date of this bill, basically May of 2027 would say that after that date, no one can even petition a court to claim a common law marriage. And so what I'm proposing is, is, is just that we would only allow parties that have already been in, in common law marriages to petition. So a type of grandfather situation. Correct. Okay.

Good afternoon committee members. My name is Jacob Torres. I'm an attorney, uh, I practice here in the Salt Lake area, uh, from fact, Senator Weiler with one of my professors at law school at BYU. And, uh, I'm really grateful for his, uh, his work on this bill and for his, uh, willingness to engage, uh, with members of the bar to try to make this bill a little bit better. Um, there are still some concerns among members of the bar that I wish to highlight for you. Um, I have my notes here. I wanna start by agreeing with the objective of this bill, which is to discourage unfair mediation tactics and divorce and custody proceedings. I believe that is a valid goal, but as shown by the fiscal note, only an average of 90 recognitions are actually filed in this state as opposed to hundreds, if not thousands of divorce proceedings that take place each year. Utah's judicial recognition of marriage protects families. It does not create casual or automatic marriages. It allows a judge based on evidence to recognize that a real marriage already existed through mutual intent, shared life, public commitment and responsibility. That is not a fiction, that is not a loophole outside of divorce. Recognition most often matters in moments of crisis when a spouse dies, when children need stability, when survivor benefits or property rights are at stake. And even in cases involving legal immigrants such as refugees, ands, and in rare, but very real cases, victims of human trafficking. Eliminating recognition doesn't eliminate these families. It simply strips them of legal protections. This is Funda. Utah stands apart from other states as a pro-family state. From a conservative point of view, this is also a limited government issue. Courts are better suited than blanket statutes to evaluate real world facts. Eliminating recognition replaces judicial discretion with a one size fits all rule. If concerns exist about divorce litigation, those can be addressed surgically. But removing recognition entirely, especially in non divorce contexts, harms families. Every family is different. Utah should keep families together, not break them apart. This is why I hope the sponsor will consider a substitute that in divorce or custody proceedings, recognitions cannot take place. You cannot backdate a marriage that has already been solemnized. And I'm more than happy to answer any questions. I know there were questions about how this works in the immigration context. Um, I'm more than happy to answer questions from the committee.

I do not represent the bar. These are my own personal views and the views of other, uh, friends and colleagues who are attorneys that have presented their concerns to, uh, Senator Weiler. Okay.

Not as far as I know. Okay.

Right. Where in, in the most concrete example I can give you. This is a real world example. When I was a volunteer at the BYU community clinic as a law student, I helped a family, um, apply for asylum. They came here legally. Um, they came from South America. Uh, and I ca this is not an exaggeration. They literally came with the clothes on their back and their passports. They didn't have their marriage certificate. There wasn't a county clerk or a state official you could call to get a copy of their marriage certificate. And without an official government record, they would be presumed under federal law to be ineligible for relief. So what would this happen? This would essentially force the family to choose either those that could apply individually, could stay, or those I wouldn't qualify as a family unit would have to leave. Um, but thanks to this law and thanks to the clinic, we successfully petitioned the court. We showed him evidence that this family was legitimately married and the court issued an order saying, yeah, you've been married. Here's an order. We showed that to U-S-C-I-S and U-S-C-I-S felt assured that, look, if there's a state judge who verified who vetted this information, it must be legit and approved. Their petition. That family is working and living here in Utah today. Um, both parents have work permits. They're here legally, um, their children are in school. Um, this is just one example of how recognition of marriage has benefited families, uh, rather than, um, uh, try to separate them in a divorce proceeding.

Thank you. Trying to hit the right buttons. Stuart Rouse from Legal Aid Society of Salt Lake, I do not speak on behalf of the bar nor the family law section of the bar. Um, I just speak as a practitioner who has dealt with family law, um, recognition of common law, marriage, uh, or couple of decades. I think that the criteria that the legislature has put in place has worked by and large quite well. If there are things that need to be tightened up, I think that might be worthy so that these aren't frivolous claims, um, either outright filed or that can be used in, uh, as the good Senator was referring to in mediation for a leg up in negotiations. Uh, I just dealt with the case last year. The parties had been together for more than 15 years that had two children together. They had, uh, a marital, well, a home that they'd raised the children in, but they weren't married. And so, uh, at the termination of that relationship, uh, as, uh, the, the, the prior, um, folks that spoke on this that would leave the mother of the children with the only means of support would've been bear child support. There would've been no equitable interest in the home that they had, uh, acquired and, uh, lived in for over a decade. So those are the type of circumstances that I think that this statute was designed to address. If the legislature wants to, uh, require more evidence of that, maybe such as a number of years that they would've had to have resided together in, uh, a cohabitation relationship, or it only applies to couples that have minor children that would be left without financial support. Those are the types of things I think could be tweaked. But I I I think that for deserving cases, there's a reason for this cause of action. I don't necessarily speak against the bill per se. It would certainly make, uh, family law attorney's lives a lot easier 'cause it would just be black and white. Thank You, Mr. Thank you for your time.

I will try to land the plane. The pilot abandoned ships. So,

I move that we favorably recommend second substitute Senate bill one 10.

Yes. Thank you. So I thank you to all who gave public comment. This is, um, this is an issue that there, there's a lot of controversy around, but 28 other states have, have abolished common law marriage or never instituted it in their states. So Utah is an outlier, um, in, in the way that we recognize that, but it clearly isn't functioning as, as most people anticipate. And so, um, I think the law should be clear and I would appreciate the committee's support.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, I oppose the bill, but, uh, you know, there's aspects of the bill that I like and I'm fond of the good senator, and so I wanted to put my explanation on the record, but he is not here notwithstanding, I, I appreciate the bill because like, we're one of seven states that still have common law marriage on the books and no one else does. Um, and, uh, good senator brings up frivolous litigation, which, uh, uh, brings up good, good framework to want to do away with, uh, with this tradition. Um, that said, I think about my friends who are millennials that are very non-traditional. I know just as many friends that have families with kids outside of a scope of a formal wedlock. And, uh, I think it would be against the legal advice of, of any of them to do what they have done. But they have chosen to do that. And at some point, because there's a, there's one in both situations I think of, there's one parent that is taking care of the kids, staying home, another one that's working and, and, and, and when the bread, and at some point there's that detrimental reliance that kicks in. If the relationship terminates, um, then someone's just out cold. I think that our common law marriage statute is very narrow in scope and it avoids this detrimental reliance. And so I do think it has a purpose. And so for that reason, I oppose the, the bill today.

Thank you. I think it's been a good discussion. I do think at the end of the day, uh, to to have government recognition for an institution, it's important that that institution then actually have an entrance and an exit. And in a legal sense, and this is kind of a gray area that really isn't clear. And it's important for all people that act under the law in Utah to have clarity. And so I urge the committee's support.

Representative Abbott Aye. Acton. Aye. Er No. Gracious. Yes. Hawkins? Yes. Lube. Aye. Manga. Aye. Millard? No. Thompson? Yes. Liz and B Aye. Clancy? Yes.

I can, I can, can you hear me? Yes. Okay. I can explain that. Um, and I would entertain a motion at any point. Okay. Um, so first of all, the original bill and the second sub only have to do with the elimination of common law marriage. The first sub had to do with some edits I'd like to make to a different bill, and I failed to communicate that accurately to my drafting attorney. Um, and those are changes that will be coming in a comprehensive family law bill. But I got the county clerks in Utah County and Tula County all exercise. So if anybody comes up here and talks about, um, uh, anything to do with online virtual marriages, that's the first sub that wasn't supposed to be part of this bill. Never intended to be part of this bill. And the second sub removes all of that language. But the second sub does make a significant change from the first sub. So the first sub, uh, intended to remove, uh, to, to eliminate common law marriage. And I'm gonna get into that quite substantively in a moment. But it intended to remove that as of, uh, may of this year. And said, if, if there wasn't a court order recognizing it, then it would be forever barred. I got some feedback from, um, you know, some members of the bar that said, well, you're changing, you're changing the status quo. Give us a little bit more time to react to that. So the second sub only deals with common law marriage and pushes the effective date back to May 5th, 2027, which will be the, uh, effective date for our bills passed next year. But it also makes a second change. Instead of saying that you have to have a court order by that date, it says you have to have started the lawsuit by that date. So the second sub is really an extension of almost two years, even though it looks like a year. Now, let me get to the, the policy question. Um, I gave a little history. Let, so, so do you Want us To adopt the second please sub? So if, if someone's willing to do that. So we're talking to The second, second sub.

Okay. Now let's speak to The bill and lemme tell you how hard it's for me not to vote. When you guys are saying, aye. 'cause my brain tells me to say, aye, but I, I resisted it this one time. No, um, I do understand that. So, Mr. Davidson here, and I just explained, um, I'll say it again. The second sub that we just adopted has nothing to do with virtual marriage that was never supposed to be part of this bill. It was supposed to be part of a different bill. So that, that's now off the table. Now, um, so common law marriage, um, the, the roots of this, I gave you a little history lesson on the Senate floor a couple days ago about a different topic. I'm gonna give you another history lesson of stuff you never wanted to know and you never needed to know until right now. But the reason common law marriage started was back in the day, think about like 1865 in Utah. And let's say you lived in Loa and let's say you weren't a practicing member of any church, but you wanted to get married. But it was a day and a half's horse ride to the nearest justice of the peace, uh, to perform the marriage. And you couldn't take that much time away from the farm, so you just shacked up. Okay? That's why we invented common law marriage, because marriage was hard for some people. Not the concept, the principle, but the logistics of actually getting someone to pronounce you man and wife. That has changed dramatically since 1865. And I'm just picking on 1865 and recognizing that change. The Utah legislature banned common law marriage in 1925 because it was no longer needed. Anybody could get married who wanted to get married. And by the way, as a footnote, because of Aaron Davidson and others, it's even easier today to get married than it's ever been. You can be sitting at your desk at work and log onto the Utah or Twila County clerk's website and do it in five minutes once you've, you know, got an appointment and all that stuff. And so five minutes is a little bit of exaggeration, but it's even easier now than it was in 1925. So you might say, if we banned it in 1925, why are we talking about it today? Well, I had to call Lyle Hilliard, uh, the fountain of all 1980s legislative knowledge. And this is what I found out in 1987. It was revived for one reason and one reason alone. There was a concern that two single people living together, both collecting welfare benefits would not qualify for those benefits if they were considered married. And so, for the sole purpose of trying to crack down on this perceived welfare fraud, the the state legislature, um, passed a statute for the recognition of an uns solemnized marriage for the sole purpose that the state of Utah could potentially come in and say, you two are really married and you shouldn't both be collecting welfare as if you were both single. Well, number one, it was never used that way. The state's never once done that. Number two, the federal welfare laws have changed. So now it doesn't matter if you're married or not. So we've had this back on the books since 1987, and there are good arguments for doing away with it. One of those arguments is that 44 other states, 43 or 44 other states have done away with it. And because it's, it's kind of an obsolete vestige from, uh, the olden days, that's no longer necessary. But more importantly, it's often you or not often it is sometimes used as an impediment to settle a marriage case. Now, we don't have enough courthouses or judges for every divorce to go to trial. So about 98% of them will settle usually after a half for full day mediation. But it's harder to settle if there's a threat of a common law marriage. Usually these are never even filed. It's usually threatened. Let me give you one of a hundred examples that I could give. Let's say a couple lived together in a sexual relationship for 10 years and they finally decided to get married, and they get married and two years later, one of them files for divorce. Now, often one of the parties might say, well, we've been together for 12 years. This should be treated like a 12 year marriage. I should get alimony for 12 years because we've been together for 12 years. And the mere threat of that will often, um, hang up a, uh, mediation because the husband is my, in my scenario, the husband might be saying, this is a two year marriage. It's not even, you know, judges don't look at short term marriages as a real case for alimony. And the wife and her attorney are saying, well, it's really a 12 year marriage and all we gotta do is amend our complaint and ask for the recognition of a common law or an un un solemnized marriage. And it gives, it gives a negotiation tactic that I'm not sure should be there. Um, and so maybe they end up settling for five or six years of alimony when if they Uintah court, they wouldn't have even gotten the two years of alimony, because short term marriages are usually not considered a valid case for alimony. And so that's the reason I was asked to bring this bill. And I, I'll be honest with you, this is not my highest priority bill. Now, with that said, because this has been on the books since 1987, some creative lawyers have found ways of using this tool that the legislature gave back, you know, in 1987. So you're gonna hear some testimony today that this has been helpful for asylum cases for immigration, uh, where, you know, maybe the, uh, the, they weren't married in, in their home country for various reasons, but then they can go to a judge and get them married. Um, and that's not patently offensive to me. And I would, I, I'm, I I think that that's, uh, one argument for not doing away with it. I'm not sure that that's an argument for keeping it forever. Um, but I I will say this. Either you're pregnant or you're not. You can't be halfway pregnant, either you're married or you're not. But this statute has allowed people to say, well, maybe we could be married 10 years ago. And I can't think of any instance in the law where we give someone a chance to go back and do what they really should have done before. I'll give me, let give you a couple examples. So let's say someone's husband dies and the wife says, you know, he always meant to get life insurance, and I think I should be able to get that life insurance now, and I'll even pay the premium for five or 10 years if it'll help. We all recognize, Hey, he didn't get the life insurance. You can't get the life insurance now. But if I passed a law that said, well, if he meant to get life insurance, if you can prove that they talked about getting life insurance, maybe even he wrote out a check or called an agent to make an appointment. Oh, let's pretend like he got life insurance. I think all of you would say that's preposterous, but this is what we're doing with common law marriage. Another example, let's say there's a, a, uh, a boy down the street and he's got, he goes fishing every day with this guy. And, and he treated him like a son for years. And he always meant to adopt him, but he never adopted him. And now he's passed away. And he's like, well, you know, let's pretend like I was adopted and I should be able to inherit from him. There's no other instance in the law where I can think of, where we can say, well, if you can show an intent, we'll go back and pretend like you really were adopted or you really did buy life insurance. But we do that for marriage, and I'm not sure that's the best policy. Now, I will concede there are good arguments on both sides of this, but I think the better argument is to do what 43 or 44 other states have done and said, this is something we did because it was a necessity in 1865, but it's not necessary today. And that concludes my presentation.

Madam Chair. My my question has to do with how many people this might impact here in Utah. I mean, how many common law marriages do we have? Do we have any stats on this? And what impact might it be on these, uh, uh, on the relationships, you know, what legal impacts might it be for people who, and I know that, that there's a, a clause in here that grandfathers people in, but maybe moving forward, what, what do common law people in common law marriages, sorry, relationships have now that future relationships? So I don't have those numbers, but I would tell you, I think it's relatively low. Um, it could be a hundred a year, it could be 12 a year. I'm guessing it's more than 12 a year. It might be a slightly more than a hundred a year, um, in a state of 3.5 million people. Um, but what I would ask you to do is to focus on the policy. Is this good policy for the state? Is it good? And you'll probably hear, you might hear some testimony, well, sometimes this helps a widow get, uh, social security benefits because if you were married to someone for 10 years and later divorced, you can get part of the social security. If it's less than 10 years, you're, you're out of luck. So I understand that some people have utilized this, and not all of those utilizations are patently offensive to me. But from I'm approaching this, is this a good policy? Is it good to pre go back in time and pretend somebody was married when they never were married, they were never actually married. And so again, that, that's kind of where I'm at on it. So I don't have those numbers, is the answer to your question.

Follow up question, Madam Chair, if you don't mind. Um, so I, I'm asking 'cause I really don't know the answer to this one. Do people have to file something to say that they are in a common law merit?

Yeah, so what happens a hundred percent of the time, almost a hundred percent of the time, is after a couple breaks up or after one of them dies, then our current statute gives them exactly one year to initiate that action. So it's not something that you can do 40 years later. Um, but it's almost always after there's a breakup. And I'll tell you the breakup. So let's say a, um, a a woman, I'm just gonna switch it. A woman owns a house, she has a boyfriend, he moves in. They, they live together for five or six years, um, and she's helping pay expenses. They break up. Now, she, Susan says, I want equity in that house. I've been helping pay the bills and the law kind of will treat her as a roommate, um, unless there's a, a marriage recognized. So, so that's sometimes, sometimes you'll see that type or maybe instead of breaking up, he died and the house was in his name and now maybe his kids or his siblings or someone's inheriting it 'cause he didn't have a will, uh, blah blah, blah, blah, blah. So it is often used as this kind of second chance rescue safety net. Uh, but again, I'm not sure that I'm comfortable with that being the, so, so there are some uses I think are helpful to people, but I think that that's almost a historical accident that was never the intention of the, of the, uh, of the law.

And Madam Chair, one more, if I may. Yes. So, um, just so that I'm clear, um, it, it's not generally something that people file or, or, or do before they break up. Um, Um, I, I'm not aware of any situation like that Because so many of, um, our young, uh, younger generation are delaying marriage. Yes. But they aren't delaying living together. They may not be delaying having kids together. Yes. And so I was just wondering how this is working. So I have a better answer to your question. Okay. If you compared what it would take to file a lawsuit, go to court and prove that you met all the elements of a common law marriage versus just going down to the, to the clerk of the county clerk and getting married, it would be much cheaper and much quicker to just get married. So people that are actively working together wouldn't go and file a lawsuit against each other trying to prove a marriage and go to court and have a trial. They would just go to the courthouse and get married. So that's why it's usually after a breakup or after a death that one of the parties is trying to get it recognized. So Madam Chair, I, I have nothing against marriage. I've done it several times. I really am okay with it. She's very pro marriage. It's, It's that I know that there are different, um, and I'm gonna use the word cultural, um, uh, beliefs. And I don't necessarily mean ethnic beliefs, right? Just it could be generational beliefs and it could just be regional beliefs or, um, urban versus, I mean, I'm not sure, but I think that there are some cultural beliefs that are surrounding marriage that, um, that I'm not quite sure. I I fully understand the, um, legal benefits of not getting married or having a common law in marriage. And I think that there might be some legal benefits. That's why I'm asking, like, how many people have this.

So, so the benefits will usually be in the terms of a social security or equity in the house or something along those lines. Um, and that's, that's why I start off with this premise. Either you're pregnant or not. Either you're married or you're not.

Um, and what is patently offensive to me is people that are like bucking the system. Oh, we don't need the law to recognize our relationship, blah, blah, blah. And then 10 years later they're like, well, now I want the law to recognize it. So from my standpoint, we've carved out some special benefits and some special duties and obligations for debt and other things for people that do get married. But what I'm seeing and what I'm, I guess I'm concerned about is people that choose not to get married, then later they're like, now I want the benefits. They never took on the obligations. They just want the benefits now that they've broken up or their, or their partner has died. So I, I think Madam Chair, I think I'm understanding here that, um, what we're seeing is trying to prevent some, um, uh, maybe after the fact, uh, kinds of, um, of, uh, desires not during the relationship. It sounds like it's not really a, a, a benefit or not benefit during the relat a common law relationship or a common law marriage, but it's afterwards. And so I, I think maybe I, I need to do a little bit more research on this, but, and thinking and, you know, listening to our, um, the people who are gonna testify. So thank you. Thank you very much.

Yeah, I've signed in already. My name is Robert Sykes. Uh, I'm an attorney. I practice generally civil rights, personal injury, and, and, uh, that kind of practice. I served here in the house, uh, uh, 50 years ago, uh, for, uh, six years. Uh, I practiced law for 51 years. And by the way, I'm a friend and supporter of Senator Weiler. I've had a lawn sign on my lawn. This is true. Uh, 25 years ago, I had a client come in, the widow of a man who was, uh, repairing a roof in Davis County and fell through. I don't have time to give you all the facts, but it was a tragic case. Uh, they had four children. They had been living together for 10 years, held themselves out as husband and wife. Uh, at the time, I think the law is the same. We had to prove it to the court and we proved it. Okay. The case Uintah trial, we won a big verdict. Uh, but this, uh, widow had four young children. I think they were 11 and under, you know, this was a family. They held themselves out as a family to everyone this bill would have, uh, as I under. And by the way, I learned about it at one o'clock today and didn't have a lot of time to do research on it. But I think this bill out outlined common law marriage, uh, would do away, uh, with, uh, cases like this and do an injustice to a lot of people. Okay. So in deference to my friend Senator Weiler, I urge you to vote no because of the justice. It will do injustice to people that deserve justice in the courts. And by the way, I've had other people come to me, uh, with cases that involve common law, marriage, uh, and, uh, I've turned most of those down. But there are others that I've taken. Uh, it is a legitimate path forward, uh, to attain, obtain justice for certain people. They have any questions? I'm happy to answer Any questions.

Your good afternoon committee. My name is Christopher Vasca. I'm an immigration attorney. I, uh, one of my former law school students. That's right, that's right. He, you actually helped me pass a bill then. Um, I remember, and unfortunately I'm here to speak against the bill today. Uh, I'm gonna give you the immigration example. Um, and I'll try to be as concise as possible. Um, let's say you have, uh, a husband that's a refugee that has been properly vetted, you know, and allowed into the United States with legal status. Um, he is maybe religiously married to his wife or maybe they were not able to get married because their home country asked them for, you know, 20 different items, you know, just to get married. Um, so he comes to the United States, and once he's in the United States, he says, I would like immigration to bring my wife and children. Um, the problem here is that federal law says that for him to be able to bring his wife, he must show that he's married. And the marriage must have happened before he was granted the status for him to live legally in the United States. So I've had five, six clients that have come to me with this problem. And we're able to do the common law marriage. A lot of the times they have kids in common, A lot of the times they have pictures of all the, you know, the happy memories they have together. So we go before a district judge, and we tell the district Judge, your honor, they, they're, they're married, they just weren't able to do the paperwork. And so the judge is able to declare them married and back date the date of their marriage to somewhere, sometime before immigration allowed him to come into the country. I can then present that court order to, to immigration. And immigration will process the visas for the family. Right? So, um, the, the problem here is if the mom is not allowed to come, there's a good chance that kids are not gonna make the trip all by themselves. Whether that be from Venezuela, whether that be from Afghanistan, whether that be from wherever it is. 'cause even if they get, they can get visas because he's the biological dad, no problem. But, but we're either leaving the spouse behind or no one comes because Howard Miner's supposed to travel all the way around the globe all by themselves. And so I know there's not a lot of cases. Right. Um, but, but it is helpful in some cases. And I think this is a legitimate use of the Utah's common law marriage laws. Right. So, uh, I've talked to the sponsor before this meeting and we're, I, I, you know, I would hope I'm, I also found out about this bill just a few hours ago and, and I'm sure that, uh, you know, we have enough creative lawyers here in Utah for good that we could come up with some sort of compromise and see if there's any way of avoiding this bill, being abused by those people that are trying to claim alimony for 12 years when they were only together for two. And still be able to help out, uh, those people in our community that need it the most. And I'll just finish, uh, the time with one

So, I'm Aaron Davidson, Utah County Clerk. Um, I just want to thank Todd Erford, uh, working with us and kind of ruling it back a little bit. Substitution one was a little bit difficult, uh, but what I do like also in the current substitute, uh, it was a, we were able to keep subsection three of the current code, which is relabeled as subsection five. Uh, that was a kind of a crucial, uh, one for us. Um, so I do, I, I feel like I have a conflict of interest whether I support or not speak to this bill, but, um, because we do issue a sufficient number of marriage licenses in Utah County. Um, but I just want to thank, uh, Senator Weiler for the work and working with us to make this the bill that it is. Thank you.

Thank you. And that language will be coming back another bill so we have more conversations. It was never intended for this bill, so.

Alright. Uh, my name's Russ Rampton. I am the Digital Services Supervisor in the Utah County Marriage License Office. Uh, basically I just want to echo what Aaron said earlier. Our thanks to Senator Weiler, uh, for retaining that final clause. Again, original three, now renumbered five. That was an important one for us. And, uh, we look forward to continued collaboration and discussion as we look at the other issues surrounding marriage. And we'll keep an eye on all of that. But thank you Senator Weiler.

Yes. Uh, my name is Eth Stewart. Um, marriage is a religious right that predates the state and federal governments by a millennia. Notably, the federal constitution delegates no authority to redefine it, which meant that common law marriage was the only kind that was universally recognized across states. And, uh, while we may decide to, uh, adjudicate issues involving disputes within marriage, that that's solely, uh, incidental. And, uh, my concern with this bill in part is that it touches on, uh, redefinition of, uh, of marriage and attaching retroactive legal disabilities to marriages that were lawful when entered. Um, which our state has a history of that, um, having the effect of separating families and causing people to forfeit property inheritance, which harmed, uh, men, women, and children, uh, who relied on good faith recognition of their marital statuses. Um, I think the point is well made that there are refugees and others who have experienced a different kind of marriage than we may be familiar with and refusal to recognize it. It could cause significant harm to them. Uh, and I I would also just add that, uh, we, we have a need to recognize the continuity of this institution. This ex post facto redefinition, uh, would seriously disadvantage people potentially even, uh, trying to score a, uh, propaganda victory for, for statism by insisting that we have authority to redefine past valid legal unlawful marriages as, as somehow invalid in perpetuity. So I urge you to oppose this bill. Thank you.

Madam Chair. I move that we move on to the next agenda item. Okay. So, um, there is a motion to move on to the next agenda item.

Yeah. And so I, I noticed that Senator Stevenson joined us late. So I just wanna reiterate, um, common law marriage was an antiquated practice when people couldn't get to a courthouse. 'cause they lived too far away. The legislature banned it in 1925. They brought it back in 1987 for one reason and one reason only. They wanted it to use it to prevent welfare fraud, which it was never used for. That's what Senator Hilliard told me two days ago. Um, today it is being used by people who never got married to pretend like they were married five or 10 or 15 years ago. 44 other states have said, this makes no sense why we're gonna let people pretend they were married when they were never married. They banned it 43 or 44 other states, Utah's one of the last hangouts. Um, and so, um, my argument has been either you're pregnant or you're not pregnant. Either you're married or you're not married, but you can't be kind of married. Um, and so I don't think it makes sense, um, to, to keep, to keep, uh, this safety net available for people who, for whatever reasons chose not to have their, um, relationship recognized by the law, but then decide maybe a decade later that now they do want it recognized by the law. So I would ask the court, uh, I would ask the committee to not move to the next agenda item.

So I, I move that SB one 10 marriage amendments, uh, be recommended to, uh, to the full body.

I would, I would support the substitute. Okay. All right.

Um, no. I'll, I'll waive. I've, I've probably said too much. I, I've repeated myself, so.

I do want to say, I'm gonna work with Chris and others and see if I can find some, maybe in between language where it, it, I'm gonna look for that before a second read. I'm not committing to change anything, but I'm gonna look for that because I, I understand that some people are using it in a helpful way. Um, but anyways, so thank you. Thank you for your vote of confidence. So more work on it and, but this allows you to continue the work. So, okay.

Alright. So this is one of the bills that has gotten a little bit of publicity this session, and I want to explain it. Um, I gave a little history less than in week one, and I promised it was knowledge that you didn't need and didn't want. And I'm gonna do the same again. So, back in the, uh, rural, rural ancient days, pioneer days, um, a lot of states, in fact I think all 50 states, they adopted the common law marriage for two reasons. Number one, sometimes it was a, a whole day's ride on a horse to get to a justice of the peace to get married, and that was impractical. And number two, sometimes people had just shacked up and they didn't want the children to be considered the B word. And they, um, they didn't want the couple to be considered living in sin. And so they came up with this legal fiction that even though you didn't get married, we can call you married. Well, the state has changed. The world has changed. Now you can just click a click on a website and go online and get married in a couple minutes. Um, and so, uh, by 1925, the Utah legislature said, you know, people are either married or they're not. We're not gonna pretend like they're married anymore. So they banned common law marriage in Utah in 1925. So you might be asking yourself, well, why are we having this discussion today? Well, I will tell you, and I think it might be Senator Hilliard's fault or someone like him, because in 1987, and I talked to him about this in 1987, there was a concern at the legislature, this legislature, that two people, two single people who were both applying for welfare could abuse the system because they were sharing expenses. But that wasn't really reflected. So according to Senator Hilliard, um, and he gave me some other people to call who've all left alleged research, and I didn't call them, he said, according to, uh, so according to him, the only reason we were revived common law marriage in 1987 was to try to crack down on welfare fraud. Well, we never did that as a state, never once, uh, uh, from the evidence that I can find, and furthermore, the federal laws, uh, that, that there was a fear that people could circumvent have since changed. So, common law marriage has been allowed in Utah since 1987. Why am I bringing this bill? Well, first of all, it is legal fiction. There's nothing else in this world. If, if your, if a, if a woman's husband dies and she says, you know, he always meant to get me life insurance. We don't pretend like he did. Let her pay payments for a few years and then give her the million dollars. That doesn't exist. If there's a, a boy down the street that, you know, a a grandfather had taken fish in, you know, his whole childhood and, and the grandpa dies. And, and again, somebody says, you know, he always meant to adopt that boy since he was fatherless. But he didn't, we don't let them go back in time and say, okay, well now he's adopted and he can inherit from him. But we do this, this weird legal fiction where we'll let people, after someone dies or after, uh, a couple breaks up, we'll let them go to court and try to prove that their relationship should be recognized as a marriage. Now, why is that bad? I submit Mr. President Tem. It's bad because when you marry somebody, you take on certain legal obligations and you also get benefits as a couple when we let people not get married. And then on the back end try to say, usually it's just one of them trying to say we were married. We're allowing them to cash in retroactively on all of the benefits of being married without ever having undertaken any of the obligations on the front end. And I would submit to you, Mr. President Proti, a couple is either married or they're not married. They can't be kind of married. You can't be kind of pregnant and you can't be kind of married. Now I've, I've, I've passed out a handout, um, that, uh, McKenna helped me prepare. So thanks McKenna, with just some more arguments that that's the basis of it. Now, why do I care? Um, I've had members of the family law bar come to me and say, my gosh, Senator Weiler, 43 other states have banned this. Why is Utah holding onto this vestige of a law that makes no sense today? And I asked him, well, what, what's the big deal? Well, here's why it's a big deal. Um, when they're trying, when a couple is actually married and they're trying to get a divorce, oftentimes in mediation, if they live together before they got married, the, the, the, the partner, the spouse, the the party seeking alimony will say, well, we've been married for six years, but we, we lived together for five years before that. So I want alimony for 11 years instead of just six. And, and then the mediator and others would say, well, you know, the court doesn't really recognize that, well, I'll just file an action for common law marriage. So it's often used as a threat to try to get more money and it makes it more difficult to get, um, to get people, um, divorced without going to trial. And with that, uh, long presentation, Mr. President pro tem, I will yield to any questions.

Thank you, Mr. President Pro Tem. It's more of a comment I voted no on this and committee and I just wanted to explain why. Uh, I did. Um, so many of our, um, constituents, uh, are getting married later, or not at all. Um, more than half of millennials are not married. Um, and, and we are seeing, uh, the same trend with some of our older Gen z uh, uh, community members. Um, or they're getting married much later in life, um, but they're not delaying, uh, living together cohabitating. And so, um, while I do recognize that we are one of few, uh, uh, states who, uh, still have this, I think it is, uh, still quite needed for many of our, um, constituents. And it's going to be, it seems as though it's going to be, um, uh, growing as well. And so because of that, uh, that's one of the reasons why, another reason has to do with some of our immigrants, um, who are, are, uh, get married in other countries because they, they don't, or don't get married in other countries, uh, just due to the, uh, laws in those states or the customs in in those, um, uh, cultures. And, uh, so there's going to be some, some impacts I think that, uh, we haven't looked at. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. President Poam. Will the sponsor yield to a question? Of course You yield. Yes, he will. Go Ahead. Thank you. Um, how will this, how will this impact intestacy for, uh, for cohabitating couples when one spouse passes away and, uh, you know, if it, if they leave no errors or if the, you know, the individual has no errors, uh, and the tube are cohabitating, how will this impact intestacy in that situation?

Thank you. So the good senator is asking a couple of questions. So first of all, if somebody chooses to not get married and they want their live-in partner to inherit from them, all they have to do is do a will. And they can do that in their own handwriting without an attorney. It's called a holographic will. But if they haven't done that and they haven't gotten married, then yeah, they, they would, uh, if, and by the way, uh, if they wait until after May 5th of next year, 'cause I've delayed this by a year, then they wouldn't inherit because if there's no will and no we wedding license, they're, they're not going to qualify under our, our statute, our kind of default statute, uh, for family. But again, this couple could do a will or they could get married. I don't know that it's our job to have two, not one, but two, uh, two safety nets for them if they've decided to defy all reason and logic and, and take that risk.

I appreciate that, that that was, uh, you know, in that situation, I think by the rules of intestacy then the individual passing, if, uh, you know, that the state would then receive a portion would receive that, uh, individual's a state as opposed to an argument being able to be made about a joint claim on, uh, on, you know, on those assets. I guess that's what I'm trying to, that's what I'm trying to weigh. And it was recently, uh, you know, I was in A CLE and I remember, uh, a point being made that less than 40% of the population, uh, actually creates a will. And so, um, while common sense would be to create a will, it seems like that sense is not that common. And so I guess my, my fear, or maybe, you know, I'm, I'm happy to support this on second, my, my question is, you know, for the rules of intestacy, it does seem simple, but I go back to my blue collar roots and I appreciate what, uh, what senator from Salt Lake said. Uh, you know, there's just, there's just some people who just refuse to get married and while they, while they, you know, I understand society's issue, uh, or a preference for marriage, I take nothing away from that. Um, 'cause I didn't vote for the home record bill, but I did see, uh, it's just a joke there. But you know, the, the idea of dealing with this intestacy is the only thing I'd like to see the sponsor consider, um, how that may impact things later on. If you just take a look at that, that'd be helpful. Thanks.

Um, again, if we wanna perpetuate this legal fiction and allow people to pretend like they were married when they chose to not get married, then probably not. But there are wrongful death claims, Mr. Chair, Mr. President pro tem and there are estate issues in 43 other states and they've said, you know what? The emperor is wearing no clothes. We're not gonna pretend like he's wearing clothes when he is not. So all I'm asking is let's stop pretending people are married when they decided not to get married. Thank you. Senator Mikel, That's all. Thank you. Okay,

Uh, I'll waive summation. I just made it and moved that second substitute Senate bill one 10 with a delayed implementation date. Implementation date so everybody can get all this stuff wrapped up in the next 15 months. Be read for a third time And the question is, shall second substitute Senate bill one 10? Be read for a third time. Roll call vote.

It's the second substitutes in front of a Senator Weiler. Thank you. We had a, a spirited debate. Um, I gave a long floor speech. I'm gonna forego that this, this would, um, for any action not filed by May 5th of next year would, uh, ban common law marriage in Utah for all the reasons I stated before. Um, and, uh, again, uh, we are one of the only seven states that still recognize this. And with that, I'll yield to any questions,

I'll waive some motion and move that second substitute Senate bill one 10 pass.

Vote. Senator Vickers Baldry Aye. Lewin Bramer bus comore as Camilla Fillmore Grover Harper Kins Aye. Ipson Aye. Johnson Aye. Juab McKay. Mikel Milner Musselman Owens Aye. Pitcher. Blum. Rebi. Okay. Sandal Aye. Stevenson. Hey, Ron Stratton come to you. I'll come to you. Okay. Vickers bier Aye. Wilson. Aye. Winterton President Adams Aye.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. This bill clarifies what makes a marriage legally valid in the state of Utah. By requiring that it be properly solemnized by a person who is legally authorized to perform the marriage. It closes loopholes that allow improperly perform marriages to create legal uncertainty while also protecting marriages that were already recognized by a quarter administrative order before May 6th, 2026. The bill ensures consistency and clarity going forward without undoing past legal determinations. And with that, I'm open to questions.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor year two a question? Representative Libe, will you yield? Yes. Representative Hollins. Thank You. I just need a clarification.

So right now, um, in my congregations, the deacons in the church are allowed to perform among other duties marriages. Would this change that?

Not at all. Mr. Speaker, Thank you.

So just in conclusion, colleagues, this bill requires marriage to be officially performed to be valid, but it also protects marriages that happened that were legally recognized before May 6th, 2026. So it's just kind of a reset, but a good policy moving forward. And with that, I urge my colleagues support.