John Lewis Reese v. Kathleen T. Holston

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 1/21/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 2090886 John Lewis Reese v. Kathleen T. Holston Appeal from Lee C i r c u i t Court (DR-08-47) THOMAS, J u d g e . John Lewis Reese appeals from a judgment o f t h e Lee C i r c u i t C o u r t d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t he a n d K a t h l e e n T. H o l s t o n h a d e n t e r e d i n t o a common-law m a r r i a g e , d i v o r c i n g t h e p a r t i e s , a n d 2090886 awarding Holston certain real property. We reverse and remand. On January 29, 2008, divorce i n the t r i a l entered into Among o t h e r award marital an her a Holston court, alleging common-law that denying that complaint December he and for a that 23, 1999. the t r i a l court a l l e g e d had been r e s i d e n c e ("the p r o p e r t y " ) . answer on requested she a t h a t she and Reese h a d marriage things, Holston a house filed the I n response, Holston had parties' Reese a filed common-law marriage. The t r i a l court conducted a h e a r i n g on December 1 8 , 2009, at which i t heard ore tenus evidence. 22, 2010, t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d a judgment d e t e r m i n i n g a common-law m a r r i a g e the parties, T h e r e a f t e r , on F e b r u a r y that e x i s t e d between the p a r t i e s , d i v o r c i n g awarding Holston the property, and ordering H o l s t o n t o p a y Reese $22,469.06 f o r h i s e q u i t y i n t h e p r o p e r t y and t o assume t h e m o r t g a g e on t h e p r o p e r t y . postjudgment motion, which subsequently appealed appeal, Reese argues court that the t r i a l denied. filed a to this court. On the t r i a l Reese court Reese erred i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t he a n d H o l s t o n h a d e n t e r e d i n t o a common-law 2 2090886 marriage because, he s a y s , t h e e v i d e n c e was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o support i t s determination. The A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t s t a t e d i n L o f t o n v. E s t a t e o f Weaver, 611 So. 2d 335, 336 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) : "'Courts of t h i s state c l o s e l y s c r u t i n i z e claims common l a w m a r r i a g e and r e q u i r e c l e a r and i n c i n g p r o o f t h e r e o f . ' B a k e r v. Townsend, 484 So. 2d 1097, 1098 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 6 ) , citing W a l t o n v. W a l t o n , 409 So. 2d 858 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1982). A t r i a l j u d g e ' s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t s b a s e d on ore tenus e v i d e n c e a r e presumed c o r r e c t , and a judgment based on t h o s e findings will n o t be r e v e r s e d u n l e s s t h e y a r e f o u n d t o be p l a i n l y a n d p a l p a b l y w r o n g . C o p e l a n d v . R i c h a r d s o n , 551 So. 2d 353, 354 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) . The t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t must be v i e w e d i n l i g h t o f a l l t h e e v i d e n c e a n d a l l logical i n f e r e n c e s t h e r e f r o m , and i t ' w i l l be a f f i r m e d i f , u n d e r any r e a s o n a b l e a s p e c t o f t h e testimony, there i s c r e d i b l e evidence t o support the j u d g m e n t . ' Adams v. Boan, 559 So. 2d 1084, 1086 ( A l a . 1990) ( c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) . " of C l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e i s " ' [ e ] v i d e n c e t h a t , when w e i g h e d a g a i n s t evidence i n o p p o s i t i o n , w i l l produce i n the mind o f t h e t r i e r o f f a c t a f i r m c o n v i c t i o n as t o e a c h e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t o f t h e c l a i m and a high probability as to the c o r r e c t n e s s o f t h e c o n c l u s i o n . Proof by c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e r e q u i r e s a l e v e l of proof g r e a t e r than a preponderance of t h e e v i d e n c e o r t h e s u b s t a n t i a l w e i g h t of t h e e v i d e n c e , b u t l e s s t h a n b e y o n d a reasonable doubt.' "§ 6 - 1 1 - 2 0 ( b ) ( 4 ) , A l a . Code 1975." 3 2090886 L.M. v. D.D.F., 840 So. 2d 171, 179 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2002) . "In Alabama, recognition of a common-law marriage requires proof of the f o l l o w i n g elements: (1) c a p a c i t y ; (2) p r e s e n t , m u t u a l agreement t o permanently enter the marriage r e l a t i o n s h i p t o the e x c l u s i o n o f a l l o t h e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s ; a n d (3) p u b l i c r e c o g n i t i o n o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p as a m a r r i a g e a n d public assumption of marital duties and cohabitation. Stringer [ v . S t r i n g e r ] , 689 So. 2d [194,]. 195 [ (, l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 7 ) ] , . u o t i n g CC r o s s o n . .A ^^ .- , q ^ rosson v. C r o s s o n , 668 So. 2d 868, 870 ( A l a . CCi v . App. 1 9 9 5 ) , c i t i n g B o s w e l l v . B o s w e l l , 497 So. 2d 479, 480 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) . Whether t h e e s s e n t i a l elements o f a common-law m a r r i a g e e x i s t i s a q u e s t i o n o f f a c t . S t r i n g e r , s u p r a , c i t i n g J o h n s o n v. J" o -hT n s-o n-, 270 A l a . T - - - zz an -ron n TOO /-ro/r 587, 120 So. 2d 739 ( 1 9 6 0 ) , a n d A r r o w T r u c k i n g L i n e s v. R o b i n s o n , 507 So. 2d 1332 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 7 ) . Whether t h e p a r t i e s had t h e i n t e n t , o r t h e mutual assent, to enter the marriage r e l a t i o n s h i p i s also a q u e s t i o n o f f a c t . See M i c k l e v . S t a t e , 21 So. 66 (1896) G r a y v. B u s h , Whether 835 So. 2d 192, 194 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 1 ) . the p a r t i e s had the c a p a c i t y common-law m a r r i a g e i s n o t a t i s s u e . the trial c o u r t a n d on a p p e a l t h a t to enter into a Both p a r t i e s conceded i n they had the c a p a c i t y to enter into marriage. The r e m a i n i n g q u e s t i o n s a r e w h e t h e r t h e parties into had permanently of entered present, mutual enter the marriage r e l a t i o n s h i p a l l other recognition a relationships, whether agreement to the there was to exclusion public o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p as a m a r r i a g e , a n d w h e t h e r t h e 4 2090886 parties each publicly assumed marital d u t i e s and with other. A c c o r d i n g t o H o l s t o n , i n l a t e December her cohabited t o marry stated that testified him and Reese that she gave she accepted her "said an [a] 1999, Reese h i s proposal. engagement prayer Holston ring. f o r us to asked Holston be bound t o g e t h e r as h u s b a n d and w i f e u n t i l t h e d a y when he h a d s e t up f o r a w e d d i n g , f o r May that." 2, 2002. A n d we was i n agreement f o r H o l s t o n s t a t e d t h a t they never had the p l a n n e d wedding ceremony b u t t h a t t h e y l i v e d t o g e t h e r as h u s b a n d and w i f e f r o m December 23, 1999, f o r w a r d . daughter, testified that Delmonica H o l s t o n Wise, H o l s t o n ' s she and g r a n d m o t h e r ' s h o u s e on December date, that Holston they wearing and Reese a wedding Wise ring. p a r t i e s had h e l d themselves and w i f e . E t h l e e n Jones, December 24, Holston, i n which Holston had 1999, just married. she a t t h e h o u s e and also She were at her 24, 1999, and t h a t , on t h a t arrived had m a r r i e d . her husband stated that further announced Holston testified was that the o u t t o H o l s t o n ' s f a m i l y as h u s b a n d Holston's s i s t e r , had a told telephone t e s t i f i e d t h a t on conversation Jones t h a t H o l s t o n with and Reese Reese d e n i e d t h a t he h a d g i v e n H o l s t o n 5 an 2090886 engagement r i n g o r a w e d d i n g r i n g . Holston t o marry him. Reese He a l s o d e n i e d e v e r a s k i n g further testified t h a t he h a d been d a t i n g t h r e e o t h e r women i n December 1999. Both p a r t i e s bank accounts, instruments. testified credit t h a t t h e y d i d n o t have a n y j o i n t cards, Additionally, loans, or other financial t h e p a r t i e s d i d n o t p u r c h a s e any j o i n t l y held property real or personal. t h a t s h e a n d Reese f i l e d a j o i n t t a x r e t u r n i n 2000 b u t t h a t she had t o l d Reese t o s t o p had outstanding student filing loans attempted t o reach the p a r t i e s ' enter the alleged j o i n t joint t a x refund. tax return into to the present. Holston testified r e t u r n s because she and t h e l o a n t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e a n d Reese f i l e d 2001 Holston p r o v i d e r s had Holston d i dnot evidence. separate Holston t a x r e t u r n s from further testified t h a t she c o n t i n u e d t o u s e H o l s t o n as h e r l a s t name r a t h e r t h a n Reese t o p r o t e c t h i m Reese b e i n g Holston, she d i d o b t a i n liable a f o rher debts. credit card under According to t h e name o f K a t h l e e n Reese; she s t a t e d t h a t h e r n i e c e had f i l l e d o u t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r the c r e d i t card. obtained that card after H o l s t o n s t a t e d t h a t she had she h a d f i l e d divorce. 6 her complaint f o ra 2090886 Reese 1999; purchased the property Reese p u r c h a s e d property from Holston i n February was i n f o r e c l o s u r e a t t h e t i m e . After t h e p r o p e r t y , H o l s t o n c o n t i n u e d t o l i v e on t h e and agreed According the property t o p a y Reese to Holston, $250 t h e payments p e r month were i n rent. pursuant t o an a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n H o l s t o n a n d Reese f o r h e r t o p a y Reese b a c k for h i s purchase of the property. H o l s t o n t e s t i f i e d t h a t she had p a i d Reese e v e r y month u n t i l s h e moved o f f o f t h e p r o p e r t y in 2007. Holston helping also testified t o pay t h e e l e c t r i c i t y associated with the property. did that bill i n 2004 and t h e water Reese t e s t i f i e d n o t p a y t h e a g r e e d - u p o n r e n t f o r a n y month lived she s t a r t e d that bill Holston t h a t she had on t h e p r o p e r t y . According t o Holston, i n December 1999, t h e p a r t i e s s t a r t e d l i v i n g t o g e t h e r as h u s b a n d a n d w i f e i n R e e s e ' s home i n Waverly. H o l s t o n s t a t e d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s moved f r o m R e e s e ' s home i n W a v e r l y i n 2001 a n d b e g a n living on t h e p r o p e r t y . W i s e t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e l i v e d on t h e p r o p e r t y i n 2000 a n d p a i d Holston $250 p e r month i n r e n t ; s h e s t a t e d t h a t H o l s t o n was l i v i n g w i t h Reese i n W a v e r l y a t t h a t t i m e . testified that the parties never l i v e d 7 I n c o n t r a s t , Reese together i n Waverly. 2090886 He t e s t i f i e d t h a t H o l s t o n w o u l d s o m e t i m e s s p e n d t h e n i g h t him i n Waverly but that b e l o n g i n g s i n h i s home. lived together on relationship as d i d not According t o Reese, although he leave any of her Reese d i d a d m i t t h a t t h e p a r t i e s h a d the property; more did she with of he a and state however, he described landlord/tenant Holston that had they the relationship. separate sometimes bedrooms, had sexual two e v i c t i o n notices relations. Reese t e s t i f i e d t h a t he s e n t H o l s t o n by certified notices into mail i n February evidence, along 2004. with Reese introduced the r e c e i p t from the p o s t o f f i c e s h o w i n g t h a t he h a d s e n t t h e n o t i c e s by c e r t i f i e d However, R e e s e d i d n o t i n c l u d e that she Holston had r e c e i v e d acknowledge several that the n o t i c e s . the e v i c t i o n n o t i c e s . cards Holston showing denied that However, H o l s t o n d i d Reese h a d a s k e d h e r t o l e a v e testified that she a n d Reese h a d been stated the signature mail. the property everyone at her church believed times. Holston that had r e c e i v e d the that the people ceremonially married. i n her church b e l i e v e d Reese were m a r r i e d b e c a u s e she h a d t o l d 8 that Holston she and them so a n d b e c a u s e 2090886 h e r f a m i l y h a d t o l d them s o . H o l s t o n d i d n o t s t a t e t h a t Reese h a d r e p r e s e n t e d t o anyone a t h e r c h u r c h t h a t t h e p a r t i e s married. attend In f a c t , her attended Holston church. According however, Holston, she refused to she sometimes s t a t e d t h a t the only were Reese's church; to t h a t Reese a t h i s c h u r c h who b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e y were m a r r i e d people Reese's testified were family. H o l s t o n i n t r o d u c e d i n t o e v i d e n c e , over Reese's o b j e c t i o n , two f u n e r a l p r o g r a m s t h a t l i s t e d h e r as K a t h l e e n R e e s e . first f u n e r a l p r o g r a m was i n 2001. f o r H o l s t o n ' s m o t h e r , who The had d i e d A c c o r d i n g t o H o l s t o n , the program l i s t e d the p a r t i e s as K a t h l e e n and J o h n Reese and s t a t e d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s were h u s b a n d and w i f e . The s e c o n d f u n e r a l p r o g r a m was f o r R e e s e ' s first d i e d i n 2008. According H o l s t o n as K a t h l e e n Reese. c o u s i n , who program l i s t e d As we marriage Lofton, stated above, the existence to Holston, of a common-law must be shown by c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e . 611 presented convincing So. by 2d a t 336. Holston evidence We conclude i s insufficient that the 9 t h a t the t o show by parties' that See evidence clear relationship and was 2090886 publicly recognized as a marriage and that the parties must comport p u b l i c l y assumed m a r i t a l d u t i e s . "It i s indispensable that the parties t h e m s e l v e s i n s u c h a manner as t o a c h i e v e p u b l i c recognition o f t h e i r s t a t u s as common-law man a n d w i f e . " B i s h o p v. B i s h o p , 57 A l a . App. 619, 622, 330 So. 2d 443, 445 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1976). We h a v e s t a t e d : " ' [ T ] h e m a r r i a g e r e l a t i o n s h i p may be shown i n any way t h a t c a n be known b y o t h e r s , s u c h as l i v i n g t o g e t h e r as man a n d w i f e , r e f e r r i n g t o e a c h o t h e r i n t h e p r e s e n c e o f o t h e r s as b e i n g i n t h a t r e l a t i o n , d e c l a r i n g t h e r e l a t i o n i n v a r i o u s t y p e s o f documents and transactions, sharing household duties and expenses, and g e n e r a l l y e n g a g i n g i n " a l l o f t h e numerous a s p e c t s o f d a y - t o - d a y m u t u a l e x i s t e n c e o f married persons Hall v. Duster, 727 So. 2d 834, 837 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 9 ) ( q u o t i n g B i s h o p v. B i s h o p , 57 A l a . App. A t 621, 330 So. 2d a t 4 4 5 ) . The f a c t t h a t t h e p a r t i e s may h a v e l i v e d or cohabited, parties standing alone, had e n t e r e d together i s i n s u f f i c i e n t t o show t h a t t h e i n t o a common-law marriage. Beck, 286 A l a . 692, 698, 246 So. 2d 420, 426 order to constitute a valid See B e c k v . (1971)("[I]n common-law m a r r i a g e , t h e man a n d woman, f o l l o w i n g t h e i r m u t u a l c o n s e n t t o l i v e as man a n d w i f e , 10 2090886 must so they live are as living to gain as man the and recognition wife of rather the than public in a that state of I n t h i s c a s e , t h e e v i d e n c e shows t h a t t h e p a r t i e s d i d not concubinage."). handle t h e i r the finances existence joint bank accounts, Holston joint tax return other year. cards, The or with p a r t i e s had other s t a t e d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s had and had filed separate in a f i l e d only paying was every Reese which i s i n c o n s i s t e n t with marital relationship. The the lack conduct of t h e p a r t i e s had a common-law m a r r i a g e . See C l u x t o n v. So. So. 2d 2d 1296, 192, There 195 is 1298 ( A l a . C i v . App. ( A l a . C i v . App. also insufficient p a r t i e s ' r e l a t i o n s h i p was marriage. shared at her church that she and that Cluxton, 1 9 8 3 ) ; G r a y v. B u s h , 835 2001). evidence to p u b l i c l y recognized Although Holston one for f i n a n c e s does n o t s u p p o r t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n 431 no financial returns I t a l s o appears t h a t Holston the p r o p e r t y , people credit consistent A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e p a r t i e s h e l d no j o i n t l y owned property. of t h a t w o u l d be of a m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p . obligations. r e n t on i n a way show that the as a common-law t e s t i f i e d t h a t she had t o l d p e o p l e R e e s e were m a r r i e d , 11 i t is also 2090886 a p p a r e n t f r o m t h e r e c o r d t h a t Reese d i d n o t a t t e n d t h a t c h u r c h with her. according Instead, Reese a t t e n d e d a s e p a r a t e c h u r c h , to Holston, t h a t he a n d H o l s t o n only Reese's were m a r r i e d . family Holston members regarding Similarly, the existence of a believed d i d n o t p r e s e n t any t e s t i m o n y f r o m members o f h e r c h u r c h o r o t h e r public where, members o f t h e common-law marriage. t h e s t a t e m e n t s by Wise and Jones o n l y p r o v e members o f H o l s t o n ' s were m a r r i e d . family believed The o n l y o t h e r that Holston that a n d Reese proof of public recognition of t h e p a r t i e s ' a l l e g e d common-law m a r r i a g e were t h e two f u n e r a l p r o g r a m s o f f e r e d by H o l s t o n . created required by family standard members, These two i s o l a t e d 1 are i n s u f f i c i e n t of a persuasive pattern documents, t o "meet t h e of unambivalent c o n d u c t , b u t r a t h e r a r e t o o few a n d i s o l a t e d . " B i s h o p , 57 A l a . App. a t 622, 330 So. 2d a t 446. R e e s e a r g u e s on a p p e a l t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n a d m i t t i n g t h e f u n e r a l p r o g r a m s i n t o e v i d e n c e b e c a u s e , he a r g u e s , t h e y were n o t p r o p e r l y a u t h e n t i c a t e d , as r e q u i r e d b y R u l e 901, A l a . R. E v i d . B e c a u s e we c o n c l u d e t h a t , e v e n considering the funeral programs, the evidence was insufficient t o support the existence o f a common-law m a r r i a g e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s e r r o r , i f any, i n a d m i t t i n g t h e f u n e r a l p r o g r a m s i n t o e v i d e n c e was h a r m l e s s . See D i n m a r k v . F a r r i e r , 510 So. 2d 819, 820-21 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) . 1 12 2090886 Because the evidence before the trial court was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o support i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e p a r t i e s had c l e a r l y a n d c o n v i n c i n g l y e n t e r e d i n t o a common-law marriage, we r e v e r s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t i n s o f a r as i t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s were m a r r i e d . Consequently, t h a t t h e p a r t i e s were n o t m a r r i e d , t h e t r i a l the property therefore to Holston remand i s also t h e cause w i t h due b e c a u s e we h o l d c o u r t ' s award o f t o be instructions reversed. f o r the We trial c o u r t t o e n t e r a judgment c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s o p i n i o n . REVERSED AND REMANDED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d P i t t m a n , Bryan a n d Moore, J . , concur. J J . , concur writings. 13 i n the r e s u l t , without

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.