Stone v. Thompson
South Carolina Supreme Court
833 S.E.2d 266 (2019)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Marion Stone (petitioner) and Susan Thompson (defendant) started dating in the early 1980s, cohabitated starting in 1989, and had two children together. Stone and Thompson were also business partners during their approximately 20-year relationship. Stone and Thompson’s relationship ended after Stone had an affair. In 2012, Stone filed for divorce, seeking a distribution of marital property and a declaratory judgment that Stone and Thompson were common-law married. Thompson countered, arguing that she had never intended to be, and was not, common-law married to Stone. The court conducted a trial to determine if Stone and Thompson were common-law married. Stone testified without corroboration that Thompson introduced herself as Stone’s wife starting in 1989. Stone also presented evidence of jointly titled assets and several documents, including mortgage loan documents, dated from 2005 to 2008, in which Thompson indicated she was married to Stone. Stone’s witnesses, most of whom were his long-term friends, testified that they had assumed Stone and Thompson were married. By contrast, Thompson testified that she had never intended to marry Stone, and she presented evidence of numerous documents in which she classified herself as single, including all of her tax returns for the relevant years. Thompson’s witnesses, most of whom were also long-term friends, all testified that they had known Thompson and Stone were not married. The trial court held that Stone and Thompson were common-law married as of 1989, when they started cohabitating. Thompson appealed directly to the South Carolina Supreme Court on a writ of certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hearn, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 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.