Jump to content



Search



Toggle shoutbox Shoutbox Open the Shoutbox in a popup

@  carlie : (28 October 2014 - 03:42 PM) Reelnrod - Just Pick A Topic That Corresponds To Your Stuff And Post It
@  reelnrod : (28 October 2014 - 10:11 AM) So, How Do I Post A Topic?
@  Thadine : (28 October 2014 - 08:21 AM) Irrrl
@  Thadine : (28 October 2014 - 08:18 AM) Fishing License
@  Thadine : (28 October 2014 - 08:14 AM) Thadine Quick
@  red : (27 October 2014 - 12:14 PM) Anyone Heard Any Updates On Flying Space A For 100% Disabled Vets?
@  maxwell18 : (27 October 2014 - 10:49 AM) I Did Contact My Congressman Jeff Miller, Let's See What Will Happen
@  maxwell18 : (27 October 2014 - 10:48 AM) @britton
@  Tbird : (27 October 2014 - 04:26 AM) Thank You Larry S For Your Contribution To Our Funding Campaign
@  britton : (26 October 2014 - 07:33 PM) Everyone (Veteran's) Should Recive A Memo From The Dept Of Veterans Affairs ****notification Of Medication Scheduling Change****
@  britton : (26 October 2014 - 07:24 PM) Meds That Are Consider To Be Schedule Ii Narcotic...pain Meds Like Hydrocodone Ectt Ect,,
@  britton : (26 October 2014 - 07:22 PM) As I Understand We Only Can See The Va Dr's Every 28 Days To Renew Our Prescription Meds A New Law Went Into Effect Oct 6Th 2014....i Only See Problems Problems Problems With This...grrrrr
@  maxwell18 : (26 October 2014 - 03:52 PM) This Is Maxwell18 Would The Person Who Contacted Me (Vern2) Please Contact Me Again, I Attemped To E Mail You It Returned No Reply. Thanks
@  Tbird : (26 October 2014 - 05:12 AM) Thank You Maxwell18 For Your Contribution To Our Funding Campaign.
@  Notorious Kelly : (25 October 2014 - 07:53 PM) Max- Contact Your Congressman- Dea Has Got Docs So Cowed They're Afraid To Dispense Tylenol
@  maxwell18 : (25 October 2014 - 07:10 PM) Anybody Having Problems Getting Pain Pills (Norco) Filled Us Navy Base (Nas Whiting Fld Milton Fl). Had A Prescription For 90 Norco Pills For 30 Days, 3 A Day For Pain, Got 30 For 30 Days. That Will Last Me 10 Days. Another Thing That Our Government Is Screwing With Us. I Don't Know What To Do, Don't Want To To The Va, Don't Know What They Will Either. Anybody Goy Any Ideas. 
@  Burt : (25 October 2014 - 10:28 AM) Does Anyone Else Here Wear A Don Joy Armor Knee Brace From The Va?
@  red : (24 October 2014 - 10:10 AM) Any News On Space A Flying?
@  Tbird : (23 October 2014 - 05:07 PM) Correction Jan 20. 2015 Will Be Hadit.com's 18 Year Anniversary
@  Tbird : (23 October 2014 - 11:38 AM) Jan 20, 2015 Will Be Hadit.com's 19 Year Anniversary, That's Amazing.

Photo
* * - - - 1 votes

Long Term Domestic Partner = Spouse?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
18 replies to this topic

#1 NWvet

 
NWvet

    E-2 Recruit

  • Seaman
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
 

Posted 10 August 2010 - 05:04 PM

Perhaps someone could point me in the right direction.

I currently receive benefits for a 20% disability and have a pending claim for service connection that could result in 30% or greater.

My partner and I have been together over 10 years though we've not married for various reasons. My question is -- does a domestic partner (don't know whether that's the right term or not but after 50 boyfriend/girlfriend just doesn't seem to fit!) qualify me (us) for the "veteran + spouse" compensation rate?

We're in WA state in case that impacts things.

Thanks!

#2 Bravo6

 
Bravo6

    E-5 Petty Officer 2nd Class

  • First Class Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 174 posts
 

Posted 10 August 2010 - 05:19 PM

IMHO, NO!

B6

#3 john999

 
john999

    HadIt.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22267 posts
 

Posted 10 August 2010 - 05:46 PM

Do yourself a favor and get legally married. This will solve a host of potential problems. Common law marriage is a state-by-state thing. In Florida where I live it does not exist.

#4 Bonzai

 
Bonzai

    E-6 Petty Officer 1st Class

  • Chief Petty Officers
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 341 posts
 

Posted 10 August 2010 - 05:56 PM

When I applied to have my wife added, they wanted a copy of our marriage certificate, and copies of any divorces prior to our marriage. I also don't think they accept common law marriages, but I have been wrong before.

#5 Testvet

 
Testvet

    HadIt.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2478 posts
 

Posted 10 August 2010 - 06:01 PM

most states don't recognize common law marriages and the federal govt quit recognizing them decades ago plain and simple you have to be legally connected before the VA will pay benefits and even legal same sex marriages are not recognized by the federal govt yet federal laws and rules trump state laws and Congress has not legalized it yet what state you live in is irrelevant in these situations

#6 Wings

 
Wings

    HadIt.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12762 posts
 

Posted 10 August 2010 - 08:19 PM

x
x
x

The VA will recognize a "Registered Domestic Partner". Some States allow partners to file certain forms and "register". WA State is one of them.

See
http://www.sos.wa.go...erships/</span>

Edited by Wings, 10 August 2010 - 08:21 PM.


#7 sharon

 
sharon

    HadIt.com Elder/Moderator

  • Master Chief Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1126 posts
 

Posted 10 August 2010 - 09:12 PM

Here is a comprehensive explaination:
http://www.post3legi...tter 081209.htm

#8 Tbird

 
Tbird

    Founder HadIt.com established 1997

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 116 posts
 

Posted 11 August 2010 - 04:07 AM

I can't get this url to open or the other one from wings. Copy the url you want to use then go to http://www.tinyurl.com and paste into the box and it will convert long urls into short ones. It's a very handy tool to put in your tool box.

Here is a comprehensive explaination:
http://www.post3legi...er%20081209.htm



#9 pete992

 
pete992

    E-8 Senior Chief Petty Officer

  • Senior Chief Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1477 posts
 

Posted 11 August 2010 - 07:36 AM

Here is what it says about marriage.

How to Prove a Valid Marriage for VA Benefits
:
There are several reasons why a claimant might have to prove the validity of his or her marriage for the purpose of VA benefits. By far the most common reasons for needing to prove a marriage are:

(1) So that the veteran may receive additional compensation or pension benefits for the spouse as a dependent (see 38 U.S.C. § 1115); and

(2) So that an allegedly surviving spouse may be determined entitled to receive dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) or death pension benefits. In either case, the rules are mostly the same, but to be determined a surviving spouse entails additional requirements, which are discussed below.



Definition of Spouse: A "spouse" is a "person of the opposite sex who is a wife or husband" of the veteran. See 38 U.S.C. § 101(31). In order to be a wife or a husband of a veteran a person must prove to VA that he or she and the veteran have (or had) a "valid" marriage. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.50(a), 3.1(j). A marriage can be valid either where the couple resided during the marriage, or where they resided when the right to VA benefits arose. Sanders v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 17, 19 (1993); see also M21-1MR, Part III, subpart iii, 5.B.6 (a); M21-1MR, Part III, subpart iii, 5.C.12 (a).



Definition of Valid Marriage: In order to create a valid marriage, the two parties must have been "free to marry," and must have formed a "valid marriage." The "free to marry" requirement is determined by the law of the state in which the couple resides, but generally means that neither party was previously married, or, if they were, that the marriage was properly dissolved by death, divorce, or annulment, or determined to be void under state law. See M21-1MR, Part III, Subpart iii, Chapter 5, Section B, 5(a). Hopkins v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 165 (2005). There are two primary ways that a couple can form a "valid" marriage (but, as explained in greater detail later in this article, for individuals trying to prove surviving spouse status, there may be a legal marriage even where there was no traditional marriage and where the couple did not have a recognized common law marriage):



Traditional Marriage: The first is the most common: traditional or ceremonial marriage. This is where a couple is married in a ceremony, whether that ceremony was religious in nature, or just a trip to the courthouse. In a traditional or ceremonial marriage, a certificate is issued by the state validating the marriage, and the marriage is officially registered by the state.



Common Law Marriage: The second primary way a couple can become "legally" married is through what is known as "common law" marriage. Again, the common law marriage can exist either in the state or country where the couple lived during the marriage, or in the state or country where the couple lived when the right to the benefits arose. See M21-1MR, Part III, subpart iii, 5.B.6 (a); M21-1MR, Part III, subpart iii, 5.C.12 (a). The rules for common law marriage differ from state to state and country to country, and some states and countries do not recognize common law marriage at all. See M21- 1MR, Part III, subpart iii, 5.C.12 (d). Common law marriage generally requires the couple to do some or all of the following: (1) live together for a certain period of time; (2) form an agreement to be married; and (3) hold themselves out to the public as husband and wife. The "agreement" can be explicit, or it can be inferred from the parties' conduct at the time. See M21-1MR, Part III, subpart iii, 5.C.12 (d). "Holding themselves out to the public as married" is generally the most important element in proving a common law marriage. It generally means that the couple represented themselves to the public as married, and/or that they were known in the community as a married couple. This can be established through statements of persons in the couple's community who knew the parties as a married couple, and/or through public documents (such as lease agreements, tax forms, employment records, utility bills, legal papers, etc.) in which the parties represented themselves as married. See M21-1MR, Part III, subpart iii, 5.C.12 (e)-(g).



Evidence Needed to Prove a Marriage: Generally, the VA will accept a written statement of both parties' marital history as proof of both the freedom of both parties to marry and the creation of a valid marriage. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.204; see also M21-1MR, Part III, subpart iii, 5.B.5©. This statement is usually included in an application for VA benefits (VA Form 21-526), as well as in the standard Declaration of Status of Dependents form (VA Form 21-686c).



Written Statement: The written statement must list all prior marriages and must contain the first and last names of any prior marriage partners; a statement as to how the prior marriage(s) terminated (divorce, death, etc.); the date the prior marriage(s) terminated (or at least the month and year); and the place(s) (city and state) where the prior marriage(s) were officially terminated. M21-1MR, Part III, subpart iii, 5.B.6 (a). As long as the statement has these details about any past marriages, and does not raise any particular questions as to the statement's accuracy, the VA will usually accept it as proof of marriage. M21-1MR, Part III, subpart iii, 5.B.5 (f).



When Additional Documents Are Needed: In certain circumstances, the VA will require that a claimant submit one or more documents to verify that a valid marriage took place and, where applicable, that any prior marriages were dissolved. These include cases in which the claimant does not reside in a state; the claimant's statement raises a question as to the validity of the marriage; there is conflicting information of record; or there is "reasonable indication" of fraud or misrepresentation. See 38 U.S.C. § 5124©; 38 C.F.R. § 3.204(a) (2).



What Additional Documents to Submit when Proof is Necessary: Where proof of marriage is required, a claimant should submit any one of the following documents to the VA. The following are listed by order of preference:

· A copy or summary of the public or ceremonial record of marriage;

· An official report from the military branch as to the marriage occurring during the veteran's service;

· An affidavit from the clergy member or magistrate who officiated at the wedding;

· The original certificate of marriage; or

· Affidavits or certified statements from two or more eyewitnesses to the ceremony.




[/list]
In the event that none of the other documents are available, the claimant can submit any other secondary evidence which reasonably supports a belief that a valid marriage occurred. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.205(a); M21-1MR, Part III, subpart iii, 5.B.6©.



Documents to Submit to Prove Common Law Marriage: Claimants trying to prove a common law marriage should submit additional facts about the common law marriage and supplemental statements by two or more eyewitnesses. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.205(a) (6).



For Proof of Previous Divorce, Dissolution, or Annulment: Where the VA requests further proof of a previous divorce, dissolution, or annulment, the claimant should submit the decree of divorce, dissolution, or annulment. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.206 (divorce), 3.207(b) (annulment). A claimant alleging that a previous marriage was void should submit a certified statement explaining why the marriage was void along with evidence supporting that determination. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.207(a).



Definition of Surviving Spouse: A surviving spouse must prove that he or she was the valid spouse of the veteran at the time of the veteran's death. See 38 U.S.C. § 101(3); 38 C.F.R. § 3.50(b). See Sanders v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 17, 19 (1993), Aguilar v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 21 (1991) (claimant's burden of proof). Generally, this will require the surviving spouse to prove that he or she had a valid marriage in the exact same way he or she would prove it if the veteran were still living – by the rubric laid out above. However, there are both relaxed rules and additional rules for surviving spouses. First, we will explore the relaxed rule — the "deemed valid" marriage rule.



The Relaxed Rule for Surviving Spouses:

Deemed Valid Marriage—Relaxed Rule: In a "deemed valid" marriage, if it were not "for the existence of a legal impediment, a valid marriage would exist." See 38 U.S.C. § 103(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.52. As long as the claimant (the spouse) was unaware of the legal impediment, the marriage will be deemed valid for the purpose of VA benefits. 38 U.S.C. § 103(a); see also Dedicatoria v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 441 (1995). A common example of what might be a deemed valid marriage is where the claimant lived with the veteran in what the claimant sincerely believed to be a valid "common law" marriage, but the state or country in which the couple lived did not recognize common law marriage. See VA Gen. Coun. Prec. 58-91 (July 7, 1991); Colon v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 104, 107-08 (1996); Sandoval v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 7, 8-10 (1994).



Requirements for a Deemed Valid Marriage: A claimant will not be able to qualify under the "deemed valid" marriage exception unless the following are ALL true: no legal spouse has already been awarded benefits as the veteran's surviving spouse (38 U.S.C. § 103(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.52(d)); and either (a) the claimant lived with the veteran for at least one year immediately prior to the veteran's death, if the couple had no children, or (b) the claimant lived with the veteran for any length of time and the couple had ever had a child (either before or during the "marriage"). 38 U.S.C. § 103(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.52(a).



The "Deemed Valid" Marriage Exception in Action: L'Amour v. Peake, 544 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2008): In L'Amour, the widow of a veteran filed a claim for DIC benefits. Her claim was denied by the VARO on the grounds that she and the veteran had only been married for nine days prior to his death, not the statutory minimum of one year. The widow appealed to the BVA, claiming that she and the veteran had lived together as husband and wife for many years prior to their actual marriage. Her appeal was denied by the BVA because the Philippines do not recognize "common law" marriage. The widow later requested that her claim for DIC be reopened, stating that she had had no knowledge of the law governing common law marriage in the Philippines and submitting evidence indicating that she and the veteran had believed themselves to be married. The new evidence submitted included a sworn affidavit, joint bank account records, a letter from a credit union, and a letter which the deceased veteran had written during his lifetime stating that he was supporting the widow. The BVA rejected all of the evidence as immaterial and irrelevant to whether the widow claimant's marriage could be deemed valid. The case was appealed to the CAVC and the CAVC affirmed the BVA decision. The widow appealed her case to the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit noted that under VA regulations, when marriage is invalid by reason of a legal impediment, it can still be "deemed valid." 38 U.S.C. § 103(a), 38 C.F.R. § 3.52. The Federal Circuit point out that the "deemed valid" exception can apply to a "lack of knowledge of a law prohibiting particular marriages." VA Op. Gen. Counsel Prec. 58-91, at 5 (June 17, 1991). The Federal Circuit also cited a nonprecedential CAVC case in explaining that the determination of a claimant's knowledge of a legal impediment is viewed in terms of "what the appellant's state of mind was at the time the invalid marriage was contracted." Custodio v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 410, 2006 WL 3007188, at *3 (Vet. App. 2006) (non-precedential single-judge decision). The CAVC's failure to consider the evidence that the widow was unaware of the legal impediment to her marriage required that the case be vacated and remanded.



Additional Requirements for Surviving Spouses: As mentioned above, there are some additional requirements that surviving spouses have to meet, above and beyond the requirements for spouses of living veterans. These requirements (which do not apply in all cases) are: the one-year marriage requirement; the continuous cohabitation requirement; and (in limited cases) the no remarriage requirement. See 38 U.S.C. § 101(3).



One-Year Marriage Requirement: The "one-year marriage" requirement states that, generally, a surviving spouse must have been married to a veteran for at least one year prior to the veteran's death in order to qualify for DIC or death pension. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 1102, 1304, 1318, 1541(f) (2); 38 C.F.R. § 3.54 (a) (1); see also VA Gen. Coun. Prec. 8-00 (Jul. 25, 2000). There are, however, several cases in which this requirement does not apply. They are the following: (a) if the marriage to the veteran occurred before or during the veteran's service (see 38 C.F.R. § 3.54); (b) if a child was born to the couple at any time (see 38 U.S.C. §§ 1102(a)(3), 1304(3), 1318©(2), 1541(f)(3); 38 C.F.R. § 3.54(a)(2)); © in the context of death pension, if the marriage took place before certain specified dates (see 38 U.S.C. § 1541(f)(1); 38 C.F.R. § 3.54(a) (3)); and (d) in the context of DIC, if the marriage occurred before the expiration of 15 years after termination of the period of service in which the injury or disease that caused the veteran's death was aggravated or incurred (38 U.S.C. §§ 1102(a)(1), 1304(1); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.54(b), ©). This last exception to the one-year marriage requirement applies to DIC awarded under 38 U.S.C. § 1310 (claims based on service connection for the cause of death), but does not seem to apply where the surviving spouse is eligible for DIC under 38 U.S.C. § 1318 (due to the veteran's total disability from service-connected conditions for at least 10 years (or 5 years or 1 year, in certain cases) prior to death).



Continuous Cohabitation Requirement: The "continuous cohabitation" requirement does not require the surviving spouse and the veteran to have lived together for their entire lives. See 38 U.S.C. § 101(3); 38 C.F.R. § 3.50(b) (1). Any separations that had ended by the time of the veteran's death are irrelevant. The couple can also be separated at the time of the veteran's death provided one of the following is true: (a) the separation was due to the misconduct of, or procured by, the veteran (38 U.S.C. § 101(3)); (b) the separation was by mutual consent and there was no showing of an intent on the part of the surviving spouse to desert the veteran (38 C.F.R. § 3.53(b); Alpough v. Nicholson, 490 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2007)); or © the claimant was not materially at fault in the separation. See Gregory v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 108, 113 (1993); Westberry v. Principi, 255 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The first and last of these exceptions, can be quite similar in some cases.



The Continuous Cohabitation Requirement in Action: Alpough v. Nicholson, 490 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2007) In Alpough, the veteran and the claimant were validly married, but had separated prior to the veteran's death. It was clear based on an earlier application for service connection (made while the veterans was alive), and on the claimant's application for DIC, that the two had mutually agreed to live separately because they "could not get along." Both the BVA and the CAVC held that the claimant could not be the veteran's surviving spouse because they were separated at the time of the veteran's death, and the separation was not due to the veteran's misconduct.



The widow appealed to the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit found that, typically, a surviving spouse must have had "continuous cohabitation" with the veteran from the date of the marriage to the date of the veteran's death. However, an exception exists when the separation was due to the veteran's misconduct OR was procured by the veteran, through no fault of the spouse. 38 U.S.C. § 101(3). The Federal Circuit held that the CAVC misinterpreted the exception by requiring a showing of misconduct by the veteran in order for the widow to qualify. The CAVC ignored the exception for separations "procured by" the veteran. Id. The Federal Circuit found that the statute was unclear on what sort of separation could be "procured by" the veteran and still not disqualify the surviving spouse, so it turned to the VA regulations. The Federal Circuit stated that the regulations directly addressed the issue of mutual separation, stating that so long as the separation was mutual and did not show intent on the part of the surviving spouse to desert the veteran, continuity of cohabitation exists. 38 C.F.R. § 3.53(b). According to the Federal Circuit, the key was whether the reason for the separation showed intent on the part of the surviving spouse to desert the veteran. The Federal Circuit then explored the meaning of desert. Using common law principles of family law, the Court found that generally a mutually agreed upon separation does not constitute desertion.



The Federal Circuit held that a mutual decision to separate is not considered desertion unless the separation was the result of misconduct or communication of a definite intent to end the marriage by the surviving spouse. Because the CAVC incorrectly interpreted the controlling statute, the case was remanded.



The "No Remarriage" Requirement: The "no remarriage" requirement has gone through many changes in its history. It is not addressed in this training outline. Information on rules relating to remarriage is discussed in NVLSP's Veterans Benefits Manual, published by Lexis Law Publishing, order information at
http://www.nvlsp.org...></span></span>.



#10 Testvet

 
Testvet

    HadIt.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2478 posts
 

Posted 11 August 2010 - 07:52 AM

well if Washington state recognizes common law marriages you should be in like flint

but from reading the definitions it shouldn't matter what state you live in if a man and a woman have been living together and portraying themselves as man and wife for more than one year have joint accounts etc then the spouse should qualify for benefits but as most of us know just because there are precedents available does NOT mean the local VARO won't still deny the claim and make the veteran or the spouse fight the appeals and wait for months or years to get their benefits they seem to take perverse pleasure in making veterans and their spouses fight these issues many times I think it is they are just hoping the people will get frustrated and quit the claim

#11 Bravo6

 
Bravo6

    E-5 Petty Officer 2nd Class

  • First Class Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 174 posts
 

Posted 11 August 2010 - 09:38 AM

IMHO, I think Federal Laws trumps State Laws.....with that being said. I still think the answer is NO! I could be wrong......

JMHO,
B6

#12 john999

 
john999

    HadIt.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22267 posts
 

Posted 11 August 2010 - 09:56 AM

If you don't have traditional marriage then you better chose wisely about what state you reside. If you want to protect yourself and your spouse from all sorts of future problems just get married. There was a case in Florida a few years ago where a cop was killed on duty. The cop's domestic partner did not get her partner's survivor pension.
The long term partner got almost nothing. This was a unique situation but the rules are the same for all domestic partners. What happens if you die in a state that does not recognized domestic partnerships? I do know that all hell will break loose if there is any money involved in the estate. Claims will be made. Lawyers will be paid. It could go on for years. I was the executor in two contested estates. You don't want that job. A legal marriage makes it so much easier. If there is no legal marriage then on your or your partner's dying bed other family members can insert themselves into the process.

#13 hedgey

 
hedgey

    E-7 Chief Petty Officer

  • Senior Chief Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 448 posts
 

Posted 11 August 2010 - 10:28 AM

Hope this isn't derailing the thread, but while we're on the subject of valid marriages, let me chime in about valid divorces.

See that "free to marry" statement? It's really important. Many years ago my dear VN vet brother married for the second time to an a bizarre woman. She seemed so sweet at first but she was a nightmare of epic proportions and he had many a miserable year with her before he left her for the last time. He struggle for years to get her to sign the divorce papers, and she refused and refused, until she suddenly disappeared, presumably back to her home state (no foul play, she told others she was leaving). He went to an attorney in the state he had moved to who advised him that he could get divorced as long as he could prove he'd attempted to contact her with no results. He went through a long, expensive process to prove that he had made every attempt to serve/contact her. Eventually he was granted the divorce and he remarried a nice lady.

Fast forward to his death. His former wife apparently had been keeping tabs on him from afar, because he wasn't in the ground a week before her attorney had contacted his employer (big international corporation) AND the VA to file for benefits. She must have been working on this for a while (he died slowly of AO related cancer) because her attorney had his ducks in a row and was able to produce evidence that his divorce was NOT VALID, and that she was still his legal wife. I don't know if it was based on proof of his having knowledge of her whereabouts or if it had something to do with the fact that they had never co-habitated in the state he filed for divorced.

The last I heard of my brother's widow (I don't keep in touch with family much these days) was that she had been denied all widow's benefits because her subsequent marriage wasn't a valid marriage due to his not having a valid divorce. All of his benefits when to that witch who'd made his life hell, not to the woman who loved and nursed him and was by his side at the end.

So before any of us get married, let's be sure the old divorces are rock solid (why am I assuming that most of us have been divorced?)

#14 LarryJ

 
LarryJ

    Hadit.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3214 posts
 

Posted 11 August 2010 - 12:12 PM

IMHO, I think Federal Laws trumps State Laws.....with that being said. I still think the answer is NO! I could be wrong......

JMHO,
B6


B6, in this case I think you may be incorrect:




The Relaxed Rule for Surviving Spouses:

Deemed Valid Marriage—Relaxed Rule:
In a "deemed valid" marriage, if it were not "for the existence of a legal impediment, a valid marriage would exist." See 38 U.S.C. § 103(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.52. As long as the claimant (the spouse) was unaware of the legal impediment, the marriage will be deemed valid for the purpose of VA benefits. 38 U.S.C. § 103(a); see also Dedicatoria v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 441 (1995). A common example of what might be a deemed valid marriage is where the claimant lived with the veteran in what the claimant sincerely believed to be a valid "common law" marriage, but the state or country in which the couple lived did not recognize common law marriage. See VA Gen. Coun. Prec. 58-91 (July 7, 1991); Colon v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 104, 107-08 (1996); Sandoval v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 7, 8-10 (1994).



Requirements for a Deemed Valid Marriage: A claimant will not be able to qualify under the "deemed valid" marriage exception unless the following are ALL true: no legal spouse has already been awarded benefits as the veteran's surviving spouse (38 U.S.C. § 103(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.52(d)); and either (a) the claimant lived with the veteran for at least one year immediately prior to the veteran's death, if the couple had no children, or (b) the claimant lived with the veteran for any length of time and the couple had ever had a child (either before or during the "marriage"). 38 U.S.C. § 103(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.52(a).



The "Deemed Valid" Marriage Exception in Action: L'Amour v. Peake, 544 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2008): In L'Amour, the widow of a veteran filed a claim for DIC benefits. Her claim was denied by the VARO on the grounds that she and the veteran had only been married for nine days prior to his death, not the statutory minimum of one year. The widow appealed to the BVA, claiming that she and the veteran had lived together as husband and wife for many years prior to their actual marriage. Her appeal was denied by the BVA because the Philippines do not recognize "common law" marriage. The widow later requested that her claim for DIC be reopened, stating that she had had no knowledge of the law governing common law marriage in the Philippines and submitting evidence indicating that she and the veteran had believed themselves to be married. The new evidence submitted included a sworn affidavit, joint bank account records, a letter from a credit union, and a letter which the deceased veteran had written during his lifetime stating that he was supporting the widow. The BVA rejected all of the evidence as immaterial and irrelevant to whether the widow claimant's marriage could be deemed valid. The case was appealed to the CAVC and the CAVC affirmed the BVA decision. The widow appealed her case to the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit noted that under VA regulations, when marriage is invalid by reason of a legal impediment, it can still be "deemed valid." 38 U.S.C. § 103(a), 38 C.F.R. § 3.52. The Federal Circuit point out that the "deemed valid" exception can apply to a "lack of knowledge of a law prohibiting particular marriages." VA Op. Gen. Counsel Prec. 58-91, at 5 (June 17, 1991). The Federal Circuit also cited a nonprecedential CAVC case in explaining that the determination of a claimant's knowledge of a legal impediment is viewed in terms of "what the appellant's state of mind was at the time the invalid marriage was contracted." Custodio v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 410, 2006 WL 3007188, at *3 (Vet. App. 2006) (non-precedential single-judge decision). The CAVC's failure to consider the evidence that the widow was unaware of the legal impediment to her marriage required that the case be vacated and remanded.



In other words, if the marriage partners THOUGHT that they were, in fact, in a "common-law marriage", then ignorance of the particular state's law AGAINST common-law marriages does not, in fact, keep them from assuming a common-law marriage does exist.............They think that it does, and that is what matters.

#15 Bravo6

 
Bravo6

    E-5 Petty Officer 2nd Class

  • First Class Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 174 posts
 

Posted 11 August 2010 - 01:00 PM

Thanks LarryJ.....I learned something new today.

B6

#16 cjevans

 
cjevans

    E-4 Petty Officer 3rd Class

  • Second Class Petty Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 82 posts
 

Posted 11 August 2010 - 01:18 PM

I've been reading hundreds of claims regarding DIC (2008 thru 2010). EVERY one of them where there was a domestic partner and or common law wife was denied benefits. It's hard enough to get the benefits due a veteran when everything is legal. I would also advise just going to court house and getting married. Hope this helps.

#17 LarryJ

 
LarryJ

    Hadit.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3214 posts
 

Posted 11 August 2010 - 01:39 PM

I've been reading hundreds of claims regarding DIC (2008 thru 2010). EVERY one of them where there was a domestic partner and or common law wife was denied benefits . It's hard enough to get the benefits due a veteran when everything is legal. I would also advise just going to court house and getting married. Hope this helps.


apparently not ALL of them
VA Gen. Coun. Prec. 58-91 (July 7, 1991); Colon v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 104, 107-08 (1996); Sandoval v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 7, 8-10 (1994)

#18 sharon

 
sharon

    HadIt.com Elder/Moderator

  • Master Chief Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1126 posts
 

Posted 11 August 2010 - 06:10 PM

Common Law marriages are recongized by the VA. They have to be from a state that common law marriages are recgonized.


Currently, only 9 states (Alabama, Colorado, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Iowa, Montana, Oklahoma, and Texas) and the District of Columbia recognize common-law marriages contracted within their borders. In addition, five states have "grandfathered" common law marriage (Georgia, Idaho, Ohio, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania) allowing those established before a certain date to be recognized. New Hampshire recognizes common law marriage only for purposes of probate, and Utah recognizes common law marriages only if they have been validated by a court or administrative order.


Further:


3.50 Spouse and surviving spouse.


(a) Spouse. ''Spouse'' means a person of the opposite sex whose marriage to the veteran meets the requirements of § 3.1(j).



#19 Bravo6

 
Bravo6

    E-5 Petty Officer 2nd Class

  • First Class Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 174 posts
 

Posted 14 August 2010 - 06:15 AM

Common Law marriages are recongized by the VA. They have to be from a state that common law marriages are recgonized.

Currently, only 9 states (Alabama, Colorado, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Iowa, Montana, Oklahoma, and Texas) and the District of Columbia recognize common-law marriages contracted within their borders. In addition, five states have "grandfathered" common law marriage (Georgia, Idaho, Ohio, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania) allowing those established before a certain date to be recognized. New Hampshire recognizes common law marriage only for purposes of probate, and Utah recognizes common law marriages only if they have been validated by a court or administrative order.

Further:

3.50 Spouse and surviving spouse.

(a) Spouse. ''Spouse'' means a person of the opposite sex whose marriage to the veteran meets the requirements of § 3.1(j).


Thanks Sharon! That's what I was thinking! Glad to see it in black and white! Excellent post!

B6