In re Marriage of Hogsett & Neale
Colorado Supreme Court
478 P.3d 713 (2021)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Edi Hogsett (plaintiff) and Marcia Neale (defendant) were in a committed, same-sex relationship for 13 years. Hogsett and Neale never formally married, and Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriages until the final month of Hogsett and Neale’s relationship. After Hogsett and Neale terminated their relationship, they negotiated a separation agreement distributing their joint assets and obligations. The separation agreement stated that Hogsett and Neale were common-law married. Hogsett and Neale initially filed a joint divorce petition, but it was voluntarily dismissed after the court stated it could not hear a divorce petition without first seeing a marriage license. Neale and Hogsett agreed to implement the agreement without the court’s involvement. However, after Neale failed to comply with the separation agreement, Hogsett filed a new divorce petition to enforce it and alleged that Hogsett and Neale were common-law married. Neale moved to dismiss, arguing that there was no common-law marriage. At a hearing, both Hogsett and Neale presented testimony regarding their relationship. It was undisputed that Hogsett and Neale had cohabitated and shared certain joint financial assets and obligations. However, although Hogsett testified that she had intended to marry Neale, Neale testified that she did not believe in marriage and had never intended to marry Hogsett. Further, although Hogsett had designated Neale as her partner and next of kin on legal, medical, and financial documents, Neale had not similarly designated Hogsett as her partner or next of kin. Neale also credibly testified that her decision to acknowledge a common-law marriage in the separation agreement had been based on bad legal advice. The district court held that Hogsett failed to meet her burden to establish a common-law marriage. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed. Hogsett appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Márquez, J.)
Concurrence (Hart, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.