In the Matter of the Death of Bill David Boyd

In the Matter of the Death of Bill David Boyd
1998 OK CIV APP 112
959 P.2d 612
69 OBJ 2937
Case Number: 90392
Decided: 05/15/1998
Mandate Issued: 07/24/1998

RELEASE FOR PUBLICATION BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS

IN THE MATTER OF THE DEATH OF BILL DAVID BOYD, TAMMY T. BOYD, Petitioner,
v.
MONSEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, and THE WORKER'S COMPENSATION COURT, Respondents.

PROCEEDING TO REVIEW AN ORDER OF A THREE-JUDGE PANEL OF THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT

SUSTAINED

Michael E. Utter, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, For Petitioner,
Donald A. Bullard, Steven E. Hanna, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, For Respondents.

OPINION

CARL B. JONES, Vice-Chief Judge

¶1 Petitioner, Tammy Boyd, filed a claim before the Workers Compensation Court for benefits resulting from the death of her husband in a work-related accident. That claim lead to an award of death benefits on April 24, 1990, and continuing weekly payments at a rate of $173.58. These benefits continued until October 9, 1996, when they were terminated pursuant to an agreement between the parties, which is not reflected by the record, but noted by the Respondent in its brief.

¶2 This proceeding to terminate death benefits was filed on August 23, 1996, by Respondent asking for repayment of less than a week's benefits and termination of further payments by reason of a remarriage. Claimant sought a determination that the benefits were properly payable and she is thus entitled to accrued benefits plus interest. When the cause proceeded to trial, the trial judge found the Respondent had met its burden of proof that Claimant had entered into a common-law marriage and awarded Respondent credit for an overpayment of death benefits equivalent to six days benefit. The trial judge additionally found the Claimant and Carlos Mahoney not to be credible witnesses on the issue of their common-law marriage because of their obvious bias and motivation to deceive the Respondent. The matter was appealed to a three-judge panel. The panel unanimously affirmed the trial court's conclusion that Claimant had entered into a common-law marriage. Claimant then brought this review proceeding.

¶3 More precisely, the trial judge found that Claimant "knowingly entered into a Declaration of Common Law Marriage on October 3, 1992." The declaration came into being as a result of Claimant's cohabitation with Carlos Mahoney in 1992, and Claimant's ensuing pregnancy in the fall. The two of them executed an affidavit of common-law marriage to cover the impending birth of their child under Mr. Mahoney's health insurance with Halliburton Services which was notarized.

¶4 Claimant proposes error exists in this cause because the affidavit above-mentioned is insufficient to establish a common law marriage,

¶5 SUSTAINED.

JOPLIN, P.J. and GARRETT, J., concur.

FOOTNOTES

1 The declaration reads:

We, the undersigned, on or about 3rd October 92 ("Marriage Date") agreed to be married, and since that date, we have lived together continuously as husband and wife and represented ourselves to others and developed a reputation as husband and wife. Furthermore we certify that:

1. Since thirty (30) days prior to the Marriage Date and at all times thereafter, neither neither of us have been married (either by ceremony or common law) to any other person;

2. We are not related as ancestors or descendants, or as brother, sister, nephew, niece, aunt or uncle;

3. Each of us is the required age; and

4. We have met all requirements under any applicable state law and there are no impediments under applicable state law to this Common Law Marriage.

We acknowledge that Halliburton Company will rely upon this Declaration in determining eligibility for certain benefits under its Employee Benefit Plan. We certify that the information contained in this Declaration is true and correct in all respects and that we will notify the Company immediately of any change to the information contained herein.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, We have executed this Declaration of Common Law Marriage as of the 3rd day of October 92.

/s/Carlos Mahoney

/s/Tammy Boyd

[Following this is a notary's certificate]

2 At this time this Court is not faced with the question of whether or not the affidavit by itself requires a finding that a common law marriage existed, nor do we express an opinion on the subject.

3 The evidence the trial court discounted as not credible because of interest and bias.