ESTATE OF SLAVENS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 12381 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA F F 1973 I N THE M T E O T E ESTATE O ATR F H F VIOLET SMITH STAVENS , Deceased. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable C . B. Sande, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record : For Appellant : S a n d a l l , Moses and Cavan, B i l l i n g s , Montana D. Frank Kampfe argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana For Respondent: Evalyn B. Carson argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted: Decided : March 28, 1973 mfi8 ? 1973 M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This i s an appeal from an o r d e r entered i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of t h e t h i r t e e n t h j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , Yellowstone County, denying ~ e t i t i o n e r ' smotion f o r a new t r i a l . The d i s p u t e i n t h i s case concerns a determinatian of t h e proper h e i r o r h e i r s of t h e deceased V i o l e t Smith Slavens. Decedent, h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o a s Mrs. Slavens, d i e d i n t e s t a t e i n September 1971, Rose Smith Meyers, Mrs, Slavens' s i s t e r , was appointed a d m i n i s t r a t r i x . Lon Marsh, p e t i t i o n e r h e r e , then p e t i - tioned t h e c o u r t t o determine h e i r s h i p basing h i s claim on an a l l e g e d common law marriage between himself and M r s , Slavens. The t r i a l c o u r t found a g a i n s t t h e p e t i t i o n e r and w e affirm. Mrs. Slavens and Marsh were married i n 1960 i n Roundup, Montana. A f t e r seven y e a r s of marriage, t h e p a r t i e s were divorced i n June 1967. A s p a r t of t h e property settlement Mrs. Slavens received a ranch i n Laurel, Montana and Marsh received an apartment b u i l d i n g i n B i l l i n g s , Montana, Both p a r t i e s being avid r a c e horse e n t h u s i a s t s , they continued t o conduct c e r t a i n business t r a n s actions jointly. Marsh managed t h e ranch and t h e r a c e h o r s e s , while Mrs. Slavens c o l l e c t e d r e n t s on ~ a r s h ' sproperty i n B i l l i n g s f o r him, Occasionally Marsh and Mrs. Slavens went on horse r a c i n g t r i p s t o g e t h e r ; t h e p a r t i e s were, a t d i f f e r e n t times, seen a t motels t o g e t h e r a f t e r t h e i r divorce and p e t i t i o n e r a l l e g e s they had resumed m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n s , The major p o r t i o n of t h e controversy concerns whether t h e p a r t i e s were l i v i n g t o g e t h e r i n M r s , Slavens' apartment i n B i l l i n g s . T h i s i s s i g n i f i c a n t because, i f t r u e , i t would add credence t o Marsh's contention t h a t a common law marriage e x i s t e d a t a t i m e subsequent t o t h e i r divorce. Marsh contended t h a t s h o r t l y a f t e r t h e i r divorce they resumed a marriage r e l a t i o n s h i p n o t u n l i k e t h a t which e x i s t e d p r i o r t o t h e i r divorce, He f u r t h e r contended he and M r s , Slavens agreed t o l i v e a s husband and wife and they consummated t h e marriage. P e t i t i o n e r introduced considerable testimony and evidence tending t o show t h a t he l i v e d a t M r s . Slavens' apartment, a t Marsh received mail a t t h e apartment, l e a s t some of t h e time. o f t e n cooked dinner t h e r e , watched t e l e v i s i o n t h e r e , and had h i s own key t o t h e apartment. O t h e o t h e r hand, t h e r e was testimony by t h e apartment n house manager t h a t Marsh d i d n o t l i v e t h e r e and M r s . f a c t , l i v e d alone. Slavens, i n Further testimony ~f M r s , Slavens' sisters i n d i c a t e d t h a t , t o h e r family, she was known a s a s i n g l e woman a f t e r h e r divorce from Marsh and she continued t o regard h e r s e l f a s s i n g l e u n t i l h e r death. I n a d d i t i o n , respondents, t h e n a t u r a l h e i r s of M r s . Slavens, introduced numerous e x h i b i t s showing t h a t Mrs. Slavens h e l d h e r s e l f out a s a s i n g l e woman a f t e r h e r divorce. These e x h i b i t s included income t a x r e t u r n s , r e t i r e m e n t claims, doctor and h o s p i t a l b i l l s , t r a d e b i l l s , and correspondence, While t h e f a c t t h a t Marsh a.nd Mrs. Slavens might have l i v e d t o g e t h e r i s important, i t i s only one of s e v e r a l f a c t o r s t o be considered i n determining whether a common law marriage e x i s t e d . The Court i s aware t h e presumption of a moral and l e g a l r e l a t i o n s h i p i s a s t r o n g one. W noted i n Welch v. A l l Persons, 78 Mont. e 370, 384, 254 P, 179: The presumption i n favor of matrimony i s one of t h e s t r o n g e s t known t o t h e law, I I 11 The Court f u r t h e r noted i n Welch t h a t marriage does n o t a r i s e by the mere f a c t of c o h a b i t a t i o n alone. Section 48-101, R,C.M, 1947, s t a t e s what c o n s t i t u t e s a marriage : Marriage i s a personal r e l a t i o n a r i s i n g out of a c i v i l c o n t r a c t , t o which t h e consent of p a r t i e s capable of making it i s necessary, Consent alone w i l l n a t c o n s t i t u t e marriage; i t must be followed by a solemnization, o r by mutual and p u b l i c assumption of t h e m a r i t a l relation." II I n Welch and more r e c e n t l y i n M i l l e r v. Townsend Lumber Co., 152 Mont. 210, 448 P.2d 148, t h e Court c a r e f u l l y considered s e c t i o n 48-101, R.C.M.1947. Applying t h a t s e c t i o n t o t h e f a c t s h e r e , we f i n d t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t had s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o f i n d a common lzw marriage d i d n o t e x i s t between Marsh and Mrs. Slavens subsequent t o t h e i r divorce i n 1967. P e t i t i o n e r r e l i e s on t h e r e c e n t c a s e of I n t h e Matter of t h e E s t a t e of Swanson, 819. Mont - , , 502 P,2d 3 3 , 29 St.Rep, Marsh contends Swanson i s i d e n t i c a l t o h i s own case, We do n o t f i n d t h e s i m i l a r i t y between t h e circumstances of t h e two cases a s does p e t i t i o n e r . I n Swanson, Hazel Hzefner Swanson h e l d h e r s e l f out t o f r i e n d s and neighbors a s t h e wife of t h e deceased George Swanson. V i o l e t Smith Slavens d i d n o t hold h e r s e l f o u t a s t h e wife of Lon Marsh, Here, t h e t r a n s c r i p t c o n t a i n s testimony t h a t o t h e r people assumed o r considered then t o be married b u t t h e r e i s no showing t h a t Mrs. Slavens ever h e l d h e r s e l f out a s t h e wife of Marsh a f t e r t h e divorce, On t h e c o n t r a r y , t h e docu- mentary evidence would i n d i c a t e t h a t q u i t e t h e opposite was t r u e . I n t h e second appeal of Welch v. A l l Persons, 85 Mont, 114, 133, 278 P. 110, t h i s Court s a i d : "The consent of t h e p a r t i e s must be mutual. t h e consent need n o t be expressed i t must be given i n any p a r t i c u l a r form with such an i n t e n t on t h e Dart of each of t h e p a r t i e s t h a t marriage c i n n o t be s a i d t o s t e a l upon them unawares. 'One cannot become married unwittingly o r a c c i d e n t a l l y . The consent required by our s t a t u t e s , a s w e l l a s t h e s t a t u t e s of every s t a t e , and by t h e common law, must be s e r i o u s l y given with t h e d e l i b e r a t e i n t e n t i o n t h a t marriage r e s u l t p r e s e n t l y t h e r e from. " (Emphasis added) , * * * While *** Here, t h e r e simply was no showing, o t h e r than t h e a l l e g e d c o h a b i t a t i o n , t h a t Mrs. Slavens d e s i r e d t o c r e a t e a new marriage a r consented t o a resumption of a m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p . Had t h e p a r t i e s , i n f a c t , c o n t i n u a l l y cohabitated a f t e r t h e i r divorce, i t i s s t i l l only evidence of a marriage, n o t conclusive of t h e marriage i t s e l f . W a r e not persuaded t h a t , on t h e b a s i s of t h e e a l l e g e d c o h a b i t a t i o n , t h e r e e x i s t e d a v a l i d common law marriage. The t r i a l c o u r t had ample j u s t i f i c a t i o n and s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o f i n d t h a t no common law marriage e x i s t e d between t h e p a r t i e s and t h a t h e i r s o f t h e decedent b e determined i n accordance w i t h t h e laws of i n t e s t a t e s u c c e s s i o n , based on h e r s i n g l e status, The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s affirmed. i W Concur: e Associate a u s t i c e s . C Hon. Edward T. B u s s a u l t , D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g f a r Chief J u s t i c e James T. Harrison. Associate J u s t i c e
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.
