Hill v. Bell

405 S.C. 423, 747 S.E.2d 791 (2013)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Hill v. Bell

South Carolina Supreme Court
405 S.C. 423, 747 S.E.2d 791 (2013)

  • Written by Liz Nakamura, JD

Facts

Thomas Sullivan, decedent, married Lavona Hill (plaintiff) in 1979. Hill and Thomas separated in 1983 but never divorced. In 1986, Thomas purportedly married Barbara Sullivan (defendant) in South Carolina. Thomas and Barbara obtained a marriage license and held a wedding ceremony. Barbara was not aware that Thomas was still married to Hill. In 1991, Thomas submitted pension forms to his employer, the National Football League (NFL), naming Barbara as his current spouse. Thomas died in 2002. Barbara then filed a claim for benefits from the Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan (the plan) (defendant). Several years later, Hill submitted her own claim for benefits, identifying herself as Thomas’s surviving spouse. The plan refused to pay Hill surviving-spouse benefits without a court order declaring her Thomas’s surviving spouse. Hill then sued the plan in Pennsylvania state court, claiming she was entitled to Thomas’s retirement benefits as his surviving spouse. The plan removed the case to federal court and joined Barbara to the action via an interpleader counterclaim. The federal district court held that (1) Barbara and Thomas’s marriage was void for bigamy because Thomas and Hill never divorced; and (2) Barbara was not entitled to Thomas’s retirement benefits because South Carolina had not adopted the putative-spouse doctrine. Barbara appealed, arguing that (a) the putative-spouse doctrine gave her the same rights as a legal spouse because she lived with Thomas under the good-faith belief that they were married; and (b) Thomas’s retirement benefits should therefore be apportioned between Barbara and Hill. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit certified a question to the South Carolina Supreme Court about whether South Carolina recognized the putative-spouse doctrine.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Toal, C.J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 805,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership