Rodriguez v. Avalos

11 Citing cases

  1. Rogers v. Office of Personnel Management

    87 F.3d 471 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 10 times
    Relying in part on the presumption of validity under Texas state law in favor of the latest marriage to determine which of two "wives" was married to the deceased federal employee at the time of his death and thus which "wife" was entitled to his survivor annuity

    Applying the law of Texas, where Girard was domiciled at the time of his death, the AJ noted that Texas law recognizes a presumption of validity in favor of the latest marriage (in this case, Luvenia and Girard's marriage). See Texas Fam. Code Section(s) 2.01 (1996); Rodriguez v. Avalos, 567 S.W.2d 85, 87 (Tex.Ct.Civ.App. 1978) (section 2.01 of the Texas Family Code codified well-established Texas law). The AJ also noted that this presumption may be overcome by a conclusive demonstration of no divorce dissolving a previous marriage.

  2. Orr v. Bowen

    648 F. Supp. 1510 (D. Nev. 1986)   Cited 2 times
    In Orr v. Bowen, 648 F. Supp. 1510 (D.Nev. 1986), the issue was whether a valid common law marriage had occurred between the decedent, Julian Orr, and the claimant, Louisa Orr, for purposes of awarding survivor's benefits under the Social Security Act.

    The Texas courts have held that this provision applies to common-law marriages. Braddock v. Taylor, 592 S.W.2d 40, 42 (Tex.Civ.App. 1979); Rodriguez v. Avalos, 567 S.W.2d 85, 86 (Tex.Civ.App. 1978). It is important to point out that § 2.22 is quite different from § 1.91.

  3. In re Gomez-Guzman

    No. 02-23-00451-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 15, 2024)

    (noting that circumstantial evidence of agreement to be married included marriage proponent's testimony that the parties had "filed joint tax returns, opened bank accounts, and purchased property as husband and wife"); Rodriguez v. Avalos, 567 S.W.2d 85, 86-87 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1978, no writ) (identifying "a contract of sale covering the purchase of [the parties'] home . . ., applications for credit, a financial statement, a credit insurance policy, a burial insurance policy, various promissory notes, security agreements, and income[-]tax returns" that referred to the parties as husband and wife as evidence supporting the existence of an informal marriage); Day v. Day, 421 S.W.2d 703, 705 (Tex. App.-Austin 1967, no writ) (holding that joint income-tax return was admissible evidence regarding existence of informal marriage).

  4. Lindsley v. Lindsley

    No. E2011-00199-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2012)

    The party seeking to establish the existence of a common law marriage after the impediment to the marriage has been removed bears the burden of proving that the parties continued to co-habitate [sic] as man and wife and held themselves out to others as married after the impediment was removed. Garduno at 741; Rodriguez v. Avalos, 567 S.W.2d 85, 86 (Tex. Civ. App. 1978). There is no requirement that the parties had to be living in Texas when the impediment was removed but they then lived together and held themselves out to others to be man and wife.

  5. Lindsley v. Lindsley

    No. E2008-02525-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jun. 11, 2010)   Cited 2 times
    In Lindsley v. Lindsley, No. E2008-02525-COA-R3-CV, 2010 WL 2349200 (Tenn. Ct. App. E.S., filed June 11, 2010) ("Lindsley I") we held that "under Texas law where [the parties were] married,... they could, under the [Texas] statute, enter into a common-law marriage after the spouse was divorced in the prior marriage."

    The party seeking to establish the existence of a common law marriage after the impediment to the marriage has been removed bears the burden of proving that the parties continued to co-habitate as man and wife and held themselves out to others as married after the impediment was removed. Garduno at 741; Rodriguez v. Avalos, 567 S.W.2d 85, 86 (Tex. Civ. App. 1978). There is no requirement that the parties had to be living in Texas when the impediment was removed but they then lived together and held themselves out to others to be man and wife.

  6. Eris v. Phares

    39 S.W.3d 708 (Tex. App. 2001)   Cited 72 times
    Holding that testimony of a party of an agreement to be married was more than a scintilla of evidence of agreement

    a. Agreement to be married In point of error two, Eris asserts Phares's evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the jury's finding that she and Phares agreed to be married.To establish this element of common-law marriage, the evidence must show the parties intended to have a present, immediate, and permanent marital relationship and that they did in fact agree to be husband and wife. Winfield, 821 S.W.2d at 645; Rodriguez v. Avalos, 567 S.W.2d 85, 86 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1978, no writ). (1) Legal sufficiency

  7. Russell v. Russell

    838 S.W.2d 909 (Tex. App. 1992)   Cited 2 times

    To establish this element, the evidence must show that the parties intended to have a present, immediate, and permanent marital relationship and that they did in fact agree to be husband and wife. Winfield, supra 821 S.W.2d at 645, citing Rodriguez v. Avalos, 567 S.W.2d 85 (Tex.App. — El Paso 1978, no writ). Second, the proof must show that the parties lived together in the State of Texas, as husband and wife.

  8. Winfield v. Renfro

    821 S.W.2d 640 (Tex. App. 1991)   Cited 82 times
    Holding conduct of parties is relevant; acknowledging representations as spouses relevant to analysis but not required

    Winfield contends Renfro did not prove they agreed to be married. To establish this element, the evidence must show the parties intended to have a present, immediate, and permanent marital relationship and that they did in fact agree to be husband and wife. Rodriguez v. Avalos, 567 S.W.2d 85, 86 (Tex.App. — El Paso 1978, no writ). (1) Legal sufficiency

  9. Claveria v. Claveria's Estate

    597 S.W.2d 434 (Tex. Civ. App. 1980)   Cited 2 times

    See Schlumberger Well Servicing Corp. v. Nortex Oil Gas Corp., 435 S.W.2d 854 at 858 (Tex. 1969). Appellee cites Foix v. Jordan, 421 S.W.2d 481 (Tex.Civ.App. El Paso 1967, writ ref'd n. r. e.) and Rodriguez v. Avalos, 567 S.W.2d 85 (Tex.Civ.App. El Paso 1978, no writ) to support the trial court's finding of valid common-law marriage. In Foix there was evidence of an express agreement to be married, i. e., the couple had participated in a Mexican church wedding.

  10. Braddock v. Taylor

    592 S.W.2d 40 (Tex. Civ. App. 1979)   Cited 18 times
    Refusing to recognize a common law marriage in Texas because California did not recognize common law marriages

    This provision does apply to common-law marriage. Rodriguez v. Avalos, 567 S.W.2d 85 (Tex.Civ.App. El Paso 1978, no writ). The law of another state is usually presumed to be the same as Texas law.