Question:
In Durr v. Newman, how did the court handle the issue of determining the validity of a common-law marriage contracted in a state that does not recognize such unions?
Answer:
In Durr v. Newman, 537 S.W.2d 323 (Tex. Civ. App.—El Paso 1976, writ ref’d n.r.e.), the Texas Court of Civil Appeals addressed whether a common-law marriage could be recognized when the couple had lived together in Nevada, a state that does not acknowledge common-law marriages. The appellant argued that the marriage was invalid under the “place-of-celebration” rule, asserting that since Nevada law did not recognize common-law marriages, the union should not be considered valid in Texas.
However, the court noted that the appellant failed to properly plead and prove the content of Nevada law in the trial court, as required by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 184a. In the absence of such proof, Texas courts presume that the law of another state is the same as Texas law. Therefore, the court presumed Nevada law to be identical to Texas law regarding common-law marriage and upheld the trial court’s judgment recognizing the marriage. This case underscores the importance of properly introducing and proving foreign law in Texas courts when it differs from Texas law.