Short Assignment Example Step-by-Step

Short Assignment Example Step-by-Step

S 20: New York Common Law Marriage

# Can a common law marriage be created in New York?

# Will New York recognize a common law marriage contracted in Pennsylvania?

# If so, what is the standard to support the existence of the out-of-state common law marriage inNew York?

Part One: Research

THE FIRST QUESTION: Can a common law marriage be created in New York?

In Westlaw:

QUERY: "common law marriage" /s creat! /s “new york”

NOTE: Creat! gives you words like: create, creates, creating, creation.

JURISDICTION: New York

RESULT: I get 12 cases. Sort by date

Page 1 of 27

Short Assignment Example: Step-By-Step

Look through the cases. The third case, you can see:

Go to the case (it is a NYC Civil Court case)

Look at Original terms box and Press Arrow right. This takes you to where your searchquery results are in the document

The use of this case is limited because I am looking for controlling authority: a case fromthe Appellate Division or NY Court of Appeals.

Page 2 of 27


Return to list

Next case is

Go to the case

Page 3 of 27


Look at Original terms box and Press Arrow right.

The first sentence tells us the New York abolished common law marriages. So we right clickon the first case in that paragraph: Mott v. Duncan Petroleum Trans., 51 N.Y.2d 289, 292

Page 4 of 27


We scroll down and find the second headnote:

This looks promising.

We click on [2] to take us to the place in the case where the 2nd headnote is located in thedecision.

[2] [3] It has long been settled law that although New York does not itself recognizecommon-law marriages (L.1933, ch. 606; Domestic Relations Law, s 11; see, e. g., Matterof Benjamin, 34 N.Y.2d 27, 30, 355 N.Y.S.2d 356, 311 N.E.2d 495), a common-lawmarriage contracted in a sister State will be recognized as valid here if it is valid wherecontracted (see e. g., **659 Matter of Watts, 31 N.Y.2d 491, 495, 341 N.Y.S.2d 609, 294N.E.2d 195; Shea v. Shea, 294 N.Y. 909, 63 N.E.2d 113; Matter of Pecorino, 64 A.D.2d711, 407 N.Y.S.2d 550).

Page 5 of 27


The first sentence contains a cite: L.1933, ch. 606. This means Laws of New York, 1933,chapter 606. This means that this law was passed in 1933. That is the year when common lawmarriages was abolished in New York.

We then right click on the case in the paragraph: Matter of Benjamin, 34 N.Y.2d 27, 30, 355N.Y.S.2d 356, 311 N.E.2d 495.

[1] [2] Although common-law marriages were abolished in New York on April 29, 1933(L.1933, ch. 606), common-law marriages contracted by competent parties prior to thatdate are recognized and remain valid. (People v. Massaro, 288 N.Y. 211, 215, 42 N.E.2d491, 492; 15 N.Y.Jur. (rev.), Domestic Relations, s 37, p. 286.) Once a valid ***359common-law marriage is entered into, a subsequent denial of the marriage or a change ofmind by one of the parties does not invalidate the marriage. (Dodge v. Campbell, 135 Misc.644, 238 N.Y.S. 666, affd. 229 App.Div. 534, 242 N.Y.S. 534, affd. 255 N.Y. 622, 175N.E. 340.)

Now we know that common law marriage was abolished in New York on April 29, 1933.

Page 6 of 27


THE SECOND QUESTION: Will New York recognize a common law marriage contracted inPennsylvania?

We previously found part of the answer:

[1] “It is well settled that although abolished in New York, ‘a common-law marriagecontracted in a sister State will be recognized here as valid if it is valid where contracted’(Mott v. Duncan Petroleum Trans., 51 N.Y.2d 289, 292 [434 N.Y.S.2d 155, 414 N.E.2d657]; see also, Tornese v. Tornese, 233 A.D.2d 316 [649 N.Y.S.2d 177] )” ( Matter ofLandolfi, 283 A.D.2d 497, 498, 724 N.Y.S.2d 470), and the rule applies as well to aclaimed common law marriage created in another country ( see, e.g., Matter of Jenkins, 133Misc.2d 420, 506 N.Y.S.2d 1009 and **330 Matter of Huyot, 169 Misc.2d 805, 645N.Y.S.2d 979, aff'd 245 A.D.2d 513, 666 N.Y.S.2d 697). The burden rests upon the partyseeking to claim the benefits of a common law marital relationship to establish that such arelationship exists.

Now we need to see if there is a case relating to Pennsylvania.

Back to Westlaw search query:

QUERY: "common law marriage" /s pennsylvania

RESULT: This gives me 45 documents.

Sort by date

Look at the cases. Here is the sixth case

Page 7 of 27


Go to the case (In re Catapano,17 AD3d 672) and we see:

Scroll down and look at the Headnotes

Page 8 of 27


Click on the box with 2

Although abolished in New York, “a common-law marriage contracted in a sister State will berecognized as valid here if it is valid where contracted” (Matter of Mott v. Duncan PetroleumTrans., 51 N.Y.2d 289, 292, 434 N.Y.S.2d 155, 414 N.E.2d 657; see *673 Matter of Landolfi,283 A.D.2d 497, 498, 724 N.Y.S.2d 470; Tornese v. Tornese, 233 A.D.2d 316, 649 N.Y.S.2d177). Under Pennsylvania law, a common-law marriage may be created by an exchange of wordsin the present tense spoken with the specific purpose that the legal relationship of husband andwife be thereby created (see Staudenmayer v. Staudenmayer, 552 Pa. 253, 261–262, 714 A.2d1016). The standard for proving the existence of an exchange of words to enter into acommon-law marriage in the State of Pennsylvania requires clear and convincing evidence (seeMatter of Landolfi, supra at 499, 724 N.Y.S.2d 470).

We have the answer to the second question: Although abolished in New York, “a common-lawmarriage contracted in a sister State will be recognized as valid here if it is valid where contracted” (Matterof Mott v. Duncan Petroleum Trans., 51 N.Y.2d 289, 292, 434 N.Y.S.2d 155, 414 N.E.2d 657; see *673Matter of Landolfi, 283 A.D.2d 497, 498, 724 N.Y.S.2d 470; Tornese v. Tornese, 233 A.D.2d 316, 649N.Y.S.2d 177).

We also now know the standard of creation in Pennsylvania: Under Pennsylvania law, acommon-law marriage may be created by an exchange of words in the present tense spoken with thespecific purpose that the legal relationship of husband and wife be thereby created ( see Staudenmayer v.Staudenmayer, 552 Pa. 253, 261–262, 714 A.2d 1016). The standard for proving the existence of anexchange of words to enter into a common-law marriage in the State of Pennsylvania requires clear andconvincing evidence (see Matter of Landolfi, supra at 499, 724 N.Y.S.2d 470).

We now go onto the third question.

Page 9 of 27


THE THIRD QUESTION: If so, what is the standard to support the existence of the out-of-state common law marriage in New York?

The answer is found above in Catapano.

The standard for proving the existence of an exchange of words to enter into acommon-law marriage in the State of Pennsylvania requires clear and convincing evidence(see Matter of Landolfi, supra at 499, 724 N.Y.S.2d 470).

Now we need to go to the next part: writing.

Page 10 of 27


Part Two: Writing

This is what we have collected from out research:


Matter of Benjamin, 34 N.Y.2d 27, 30, 355 N.Y.S.2d 356, 311 N.E.2d 495: Common-lawmarriages were abolished in New York on April 29, 1933 (L.1933, ch. 606).

THE SECOND QUESTION: Will New York recognize a common law marriage contractedin Pennsylvania?

In re Catapano, 17 A.D.3d 672, 794 N.Y.S.2d 401: Although abolished in New York, “acommon-law marriage contracted in a sister State will be recognized as valid here if it is valid wherecontracted” (Matter of Mott v. Duncan Petroleum Trans., 51 N.Y.2d 289, 292, 434 N.Y.S.2d 155, 414N.E.2d 657; see *673 Matter of Landolfi, 283 A.D.2d 497, 498, 724 N.Y.S.2d 470; Tornese v. Tornese,233 A.D.2d 316, 649 N.Y.S.2d 177). Under Pennsylvania law, a common-law marriage may be createdby an exchange of words in the present tense spoken with the specific purpose that the legal relationshipof husband and wife be thereby created (see Staudenmayer v. Staudenmayer, 552 Pa. 253, 261–262, 714A.2d 1016). The standard for proving the existence of an exchange of words to enter into a common-lawmarriage in the State of Pennsylvania requires clear and convincing evidence (see Matter of Landolfi,supra at 499, 724 N.Y.S.2d 470).

THIRD QUESTION: If so, what is the standard to support the existence of the out-of-statecommon law marriage in New York?

In re Catapano, 17 A.D.3d 672, 794 N.Y.S.2d 401: The standard for proving the existence of anexchange of words to enter into a common-law marriage in the State of Pennsylvania requires clear andconvincing evidence (see Matter of Landolfi, supra at 499, 724 N.Y.S.2d 470).

Page 11 of 27


Take the quotes and put them in English.

Can a common law marriage be created in New York?

Matter of Benjamin, 34 N.Y.2d 27, 30, 355 N.Y.S.2d 356, 311 N.E.2d 495: Common-lawmarriages were abolished in New York on April 29, 1933 (L.1933, ch. 606).

Can become:

Common law marriages cannot be created on New York; the creation of common law marriagesin New York was abolished in 1933.

Since this legal statement is based on the case Matter of Benjamin, 34 N.Y.2d 27, 30, 355N.Y.S.2d 356, 311 N.E.2d 495, you need to insert the cite.

Common law marriages cannot be created on New York; the creation of common law marriagesin New York was abolished in 1933 (Matter of Benjamin, 34 N.Y.2d 27, 30, 355 N.Y.S.2d 356, 311N.E.2d 495).

Will New York recognize a common law marriage contracted in Pennsylvania?

In re Catapano, 17 A.D.3d 672, 794 N.Y.S.2d 401: Although abolished in New York, “acommon-law marriage contracted in a sister State will be recognized as valid here if it is valid wherecontracted” (Matter of Mott v. Duncan Petroleum Trans., 51 N.Y.2d 289, 292, 434 N.Y.S.2d 155, 414N.E.2d 657; see *673 Matter of Landolfi, 283 A.D.2d 497, 498, 724 N.Y.S.2d 470; Tornese v. Tornese,233 A.D.2d 316, 649 N.Y.S.2d 177). Under Pennsylvania law, a common-law marriage may be createdby an exchange of words in the present tense spoken with the specific purpose that the legal relationshipof husband and wife be thereby created (see Staudenmayer v. Staudenmayer, 552 Pa. 253, 261–262, 714A.2d 1016). The standard for proving the existence of an exchange of words to enter into a common-lawmarriage in the State of Pennsylvania requires clear and convincing evidence (see Matter of Landolfi,supra at 499, 724 N.Y.S.2d 470).

Can become:

A common-law marriage created in another State is recognized as valid in New York if it is validin the state where it was created. In Pennsylvania, a common-law marriage is created when two peopleexchange words that they are now creating a legal relationship of married spouses.

This is based on In re Catapano, 17 A.D.3d 672, 794 N.Y.S.2d 401, which cites Matter of Mott v.Duncan Petroleum Trans., 51 N.Y.2d 289, 292, 434 N.Y.S.2d 155, 414 N.E.2d 65 7; Matter of Landolfi, 283A.D.2d 497, 498, 724 N.Y.S.2d 470; Tornese v. Tornese, 233 A.D.2d 316, 649 N.Y.S.2d 177.

Page 12 of 27


Now we insert the cites into the sentences:

A common-law marriage created in another State is recognized as valid in New York if it is validin the state where it was created (In re Catapano, 17 A.D.3d 672, 794 N.Y.S.2d 401, which cites Matterof Mott v. Duncan Petroleum Trans., 51 N.Y.2d 289, 292, 434 N.Y.S.2d 155, 414 N.E.2d 657; Matter ofLandolfi, 283 A.D.2d 497, 498, 724 N.Y.S.2d 470; Tornese v. Tornese, 233 A.D.2d 316, 649 N.Y.S.2d177). In Pennsylvania, a common-law marriage is created when two people exchange words that they arenow creating a legal relationship of married spouses. (see Staudenmayer v. Staudenmayer, 552 Pa. 253,261–262, 714 A.2d 1016)

If so, what is the standard to support the existence of the out-of-state common lawmarriage in New York?

In re Catapano, 17 A.D.3d 672, 794 N.Y.S.2d 401: The standard for proving the existence of anexchange of words to enter into a common-law marriage in the State of Pennsylvania requires clear andconvincing evidence (see Matter of Landolfi, supra at 499, 724 N.Y.S.2d 470).

Can become:

The standard of proof to support the existence the Pennsylvania common law marriage in NewYork is clear and convincing evidence

This sentence is based on In re Catapano, 17 A.D.3d 672, 794 N.Y.S.2d 401 and Matter ofLandolfi, supra at 499, 724 N.Y.S.2d 470.

So we insert the law into the sentence:

The standard of proof to support the existence the Pennsylvania common law marriage in NewYork is clear and convincing evidence (In re Catapano, 17 A.D.3d 672, 794 N.Y.S.2d 401 and Matter ofLandolfi, supra at 499, 724 N.Y.S.2d 470).

So what do we have so far:




A common-law marriage created in another State is recognized as valid in New York if it is validin the state where it was created (In re Catapano, 17 A.D.3d 672, 794 N.Y.S.2d 401, which cites Matterof Mott v. Duncan Petroleum Trans., 51 N.Y.2d 289, 292, 434 N.Y.S.2d 155, 414 N.E.2d 657; Matter of

Page 13 of 27


Landolfi, 283 A.D.2d 497, 498, 724 N.Y.S.2d 470; Tornese v. Tornese, 233 A.D.2d 316, 649 N.Y.S.2d177). Under Pennsylvania law, a common-law marriage is created by an exchange of words between thecouple in the present tense said in a manner that it is clear that they are creating the legal relationship ofhusband and wife (In re Catapano, 17 A.D.3d 672, 794 N.Y.S.2d 401, which cites Staudenmayer v.Staudenmayer, 552 Pa. 253, 261–262, 714 A.2d 1016 and Matter of Landolfi, supra at 499, 724 N.Y.S.2d470).



Are We Done? No!

We need to clean up the cites.

What we are going to do is:

1. Find the proper cite for the case (i.e., get rid of the unofficial/parallel cites)

2. Find the proper name of the case

3. Shorten cites (if you can)

Page 14 of 27


Part Three: Clean Cites

Step One: Proper Cites (Get Rid of Unofficial/parallel Cites)




A common-law marriage created in another State is recognized as valid in New York if it is validin the state where it was created (In re Catapano, 17 A.D.3d 672, 794 N.Y.S.2d 401, which cites Matterof Mott v. Duncan Petroleum Trans., 51 N.Y.2d 289, 292, 434 N.Y.S.2d 155, 414 N.E.2d 657; Matter ofLandolfi, 283 A.D.2d 497, 498, 724 N.Y.S.2d 470; Tornese v. Tornese, 233 A.D.2d 316, 649 N.Y.S.2d177). Under Pennsylvania law, a common-law marriage is created by an exchange of words between thecouple in the present tense said in a manner that it is clear that they are creating the legal relationship ofhusband and wife (In re Catapano, 17 A.D.3d 672, 794 N.Y.S.2d 401, which cites Staudenmayer v.Staudenmayer, 552 Pa. 253, 261–262, 714 A.2d 1016 and Matter of Landolfi, supra1 at 499, 724N.Y.S.2d 470).



1 Supra means that that the case was cited before. In this situation, the cite for Landolfi is 283 A.D.2d 497.

Page 15 of 27


This leaves us with:


Common law marriages cannot be created on New York; the creation of common law marriagesin New York was abolished in 1933 (Matter of Benjamin, 34 N.Y.2d 27, 30).


A common-law marriage created in another State is recognized as valid in New York if it is validin the state where it was created (In re Catapano, 17 A.D.3d 672, which cites Matter of Mott v. DuncanPetroleum Trans., 51 N.Y.2d 289, 292; Matter of Landolfi, 283 A.D.2d 497, 498; Tornese v. Tornese,233 A.D.2d 316). Under Pennsylvania law, a common-law marriage is created by an exchange of wordsbetween the couple in the present tense said in a manner that it is clear that they are creating the legalrelationship of husband and wife (In re Catapano, 17 A.D.3d 672, which cites Staudenmayer v.Staudenmayer, 552 Pa. 253, 261–262, 714 A.2d 1016 and Matter of Landolfi, 283 A.D.2d 497 at 499).


The standard of proof to support the existence the Pennsylvania common law marriage in NewYork is clear and convincing evidence (In re Catapano, 17 A.D.3d 672 and Matter of Landolfi, 283A.D.2d 497 at 499).

Next, get rid of the unnecessary periods. This leaves us with:


Common law marriages cannot be created on New York; the creation of common law marriagesin New York was abolished in 1933 (Matter of Benjamin, 34 NY2d 27, 30).


A common-law marriage created in another State is recognized as valid in New York if it is validin the state where it was created (In re Catapano, 17 AD3d 672, which cites Matter of Mott v DuncanPetroleum Trans., 51 NY2d 289, 292; Matter of Landolfi, 283 AD2d 497, 498; Tornese v Tornese, 233AD2d 316). Under Pennsylvania law, a common-law marriage is created by an exchange of wordsbetween the couple in the present tense said in a manner that it is clear that they are creating the legalrelationship of husband and wife (In re Catapano, 17 AD3d 672, which cites Staudenmayer vStaudenmayer, 552 Pa 253, 261–262, 714 A2d 1016 and Matter of Landolfi, 283 AD2d 497 at 499).


Page 16 of 27


The standard of proof to support the existence the Pennsylvania common law marriage in NewYork is clear and convincing evidence (In re Catapano, 17 AD3d 672 and Matter of Landolfi, 283 AD2d497 at 499).

Next we need to add identifiers. In order to do this you will have to go back to Westlaw andfind the cases and find what you need for the identifiers.

Court Needed Identifier

NY Court of Appeals [YEAR]

NY Appellate Division [__ Dept YEAR]

Out of State Decision [YEAR]

This leaves us with:


Common law marriages cannot be created on New York; the creation of common law marriagesin New York was abolished in 1933 (Matter of Benjamin, 34 NY2d 27, 30 [1974]).


A common-law marriage created in another State is recognized as valid in New York if it is validin the state where it was created (In re Catapano, 17 AD3d 672 [2d Dept 2005], which cites Matter ofMott v Duncan Petroleum Trans., 51 NY2d 289, 292 [1980]; Matter of Landolfi, 283 AD2d 497, 498 [2dDept 2001]; Tornese v Tornese, 233 AD2d 316 [2d Dept 1996]). Under Pennsylvania law, a common-lawmarriage is created by an exchange of words between the couple in the present tense said in a mannerthat it is clear that they are creating the legal relationship of husband and wife (In re Catapano, 17 AD3d672 [2d Dept 2005], which cites Staudenmayer v Staudenmayer, 552 Pa 253, 261–262, 714 A2d 1016[1998] and Matter of Landolfi, 283 AD2d 497 at 499 [2d Dept 2001]).


The standard of proof to support the existence the Pennsylvania common law marriage in NewYork is clear and convincing evidence (In re Catapano, 17 AD3d 672 [2d Dept 2005] and Matter ofLandolfi, 283 AD2d 497 at 499 [2d Dept 2001]).

Next. We need to clean up the cites (e.g., get rid of “at” and “which cites,” becomes,“citing”).

Page 17 of 27





A common-law marriage created in another State is recognized as valid in New York if it is validin the state where it was created (In re Catapano, 17 AD3d 672 [2d Dept 2005], citing Matter of Mott vDuncan Petroleum Trans., 51 NY2d 289, 292 [1980]; Matter of Landolfi, 283 AD2d 497, 498 [2d Dept2001]; Tornese v Tornese, 233 AD2d 316 [2d Dept 1996]). Under Pennsylvania law, a common-lawmarriage is created by an exchange of words between the couple in the present tense said in a mannerthat it is clear that they are creating the legal relationship of husband and wife (In re Catapano, 17 AD3d672 [2d Dept 2005], citing Staudenmayer v Staudenmayer, 552 Pa 253, 261–262, 714 A2d 1016 [1998]and Matter of Landolfi, 283 AD2d 497, 499 [2d Dept 2001]).


The standard of proof to support the existence the Pennsylvania common law marriage in NewYork is clear and convincing evidence (In re Catapano, 17 AD3d 672 [2d Dept 2005]; Matter ofLandolfi, 283 AD2d 497, 499 [2d Dept 2001]).

Page 18 of 27


Step Two: Proper Name of the Case

In order to do this, you will have to go to the State Reporter Citation Services(http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/Citator_Menu.htm).

Here are all the cases cited in the order in which they are cited. 2

Matter of Benjamin, 34 NY2d 27, 30 [1974].

In re Catapano, 17 AD3d 672 [2d Dept 2005],

Matter of Mott v Duncan Petroleum Trans., 51 NY2d 289, 292 [1980];

Matter of Landolfi, 283 AD2d 497, 498 [2d Dept 2001]

Tornese v Tornese, 233 AD2d 316 [2d Dept 1996]

In re Catapano, 17 AD3d 672 [2d Dept 2005]

Staudenmayer v Staudenmayer, 552 Pa 253, 261–262, 714 A2d 1016 [1998]

Matter of Landolfi, 283 AD2d 497, 499 [2d Dept 2001].

In re Catapano, 17 AD3d 672 [2d Dept 2005]

Matter of Landolfi, 283 AD2d 497, 499 [2d Dept 2001]

Now, case-by case go to citation services and find the official name of the case:

Name You Have Proper Name

Matter of Benjamin Matter of Benjamin

In re Catapano Matter of Catapano

Matter of Mott v Duncan Petroleum Trans. Matter of Mott v Duncan Petroleum Trans.

Matter of Landolfi Matter of Landolfi

Tornese v Tornese Tornese v Tornese

Staudenmayer v Staudenmayer Staudenmayer v Staudenmayer

The only change is “In re Catapano” which should be “Matter of Catapano.”

2 You will notice that two cases are cited more than once: In re Catapano, 17 AD3d 672 [2d Dept 2005]; and Matter of Landolfi, 283AD2d 497, 498 [2d Dept 2001]

Page 19 of 27


So what we now have is:




A common-law marriage created in another State is recognized as valid in New York if it is validin the state where it was created (Matter of Catapano, 17 AD3d 672 [2d Dept 2005], citing Matter ofMott v Duncan Petroleum Trans., 51 NY2d 289, 292 [1980]; Matter of Landolfi, 283 AD2d 497, 498 [2dDept 2001]; Tornese v Tornese, 233 AD2d 316 [2d Dept 1996]). Under Pennsylvania law, a common-lawmarriage is created by an exchange of words between the couple in the present tense said in a mannerthat it is clear that they are creating the legal relationship of husband and wife (Matter of Catapano, 17AD3d 672 [2d Dept 2005], citing Staudenmayer v Staudenmayer, 552 Pa 253, 261–262, 714 A2d 1016[1998] and Matter of Landolfi, 283 AD2d 497, 499 [2d Dept 2001]).


The standard of proof to support the existence the Pennsylvania common law marriage in NewYork is clear and convincing evidence (Matter of Catapano, 17 AD3d 672 [2d Dept 2005]; Matter ofLandolfi, 283 AD2d 497, 499 [2d Dept 2001]).

Page 20 of 27


Step Three: Shorten the Cite If Possible

If you cite a case more than one, you should try to shorten the citation. The cites in boldare the cites that are cited a second (and third) time.




A common-law marriage created in another State is recognized as valid in New York if it is validin the state where it was created (Matter of Catapano, 17 AD3d 672 [2d Dept 2005], citing Matter ofMott v Duncan Petroleum Trans., 51 NY2d 289, 292 [1980]; Matter of Landolfi, 283 AD2d 497, 498 [2dDept 2001]; Tornese v Tornese, 233 AD2d 316 [2d Dept 1996]). Under Pennsylvania law, a common-lawmarriage is created by an exchange of words between the couple in the present tense said in a mannerthat it is clear that they are creating the legal relationship of husband and wife (Matter of Catapano, 17AD3d 672 [2d Dept 2005], citing Staudenmayer v Staudenmayer, 552 Pa 253, 261–262, 714 A2d 1016[1998]; Matter of Landolfi, 283 AD2d 497, 499 [2d Dept 2001]).


The standard of proof to support the existence the Pennsylvania common law marriage in NewYork is clear and convincing evidence (Matter of Catapano, 17 AD3d 672 [2d Dept 2005]; Matter ofLandolfi, 283 AD2d 497, 499 [2d Dept 2001]).

Now we can shorten it.




A common-law marriage created in another State is recognized as valid in New York if it is validin the state where it was created (Matter of Catapano, 17 AD3d 672 [2d Dept 2005], citing Matter ofMott v Duncan Petroleum Trans., 51 NY2d 289, 292 [1980]; Matter of Landolfi, 283 AD2d 497, 498 [2dDept 2001]; Tornese v Tornese, 233 AD2d 316 [2d Dept 1996]). Under Pennsylvania law, a common-lawmarriage is created by an exchange of words between the couple in the present tense said in a mannerthat it is clear that they are creating the legal relationship of husband and wife (Catapano, 17 AD3d 672,

Page 21 of 27


citing Staudenmayer v Staudenmayer, 552 Pa 253, 261–262, 714 A2d 1016 [1998]; Landolfi, 283 AD2dat 499).


The standard of proof to support the existence the Pennsylvania common law marriage in NewYork is clear and convincing evidence (Catapano, 17 AD3d 672; Landolfi, 283 AD2d at 499).

Now put the paper together.

Page 22 of 27


Benjamin CardozoLegal Research, Fall 2018, [Saturday] [Monday]


# Can a common law marriage be created in New York?

# Will New York recognize a common law marriage contracted in Pennsylvania?

# If so, what is the standard to prove the existence of the out-of-state common law marriage in New York?




A common-law marriage created in another State is recognized as valid in New York if it is validin the state where it was created (Matter of Catapano, 17 AD3d 672 [2d Dept 2005], citing Matter ofMott v Duncan Petroleum Trans., 51 NY2d 289, 292 [1980]; Matter of Landolfi, 283 AD2d 497, 498 [2dDept 2001]; Tornese v Tornese, 233 AD2d 316 [2d Dept 1996]). Under Pennsylvania law, a common-lawmarriage is created by an exchange of words between the couple in the present tense said in a mannerthat it is clear that they are creating the legal relationship of husband and wife (Catapano, 17 AD3d 672,citing Staudenmayer v Staudenmayer, 552 Pa 253, 261–262, 714 A2d 1016 [1998]; Landolfi, 283 AD2dat 499).



Page 23 of 27


Research Trail

Now you will need to state the research trail.

Basically, you will go through part one and make that into your research trail.


In Westlaw:

QUERY:"common law marriage" /s creat! /s york

RESULT: I got 12 cases. I looked through the cases and looked at the fourth case ( Zunce vRodriguez, 22 Misc 3d 265). However this case did not give me the legal authority I was looking for.

I looked at the fifth case (In re Estate of Gernold, 9 Misc 3d 427). The first sentence informed methat New York abolished common law marriages. So I looked at the first case in that paragraph: Mott v.Duncan Petroleum Trans., 51 N.Y.2d 289, 292.

In that case I found Matter of Benjamin, 34 N.Y.2d 27, 30. This case explained that common lawmarriage was abolished in New York on April 29, 1933.

THE SECOND QUESTION: Will New York recognize a common law marriage contracted inPennsylvania?

I in the previous question part of the answer: “ It is well settled that although abolished in New York,‘a common-law marriage contracted in a sister State will be recognized here as valid if it is valid wherecontracted’ (Mott v. Duncan Petroleum Trans., 51 N.Y.2d 289, 292; see also, Tornese v. Tornese, 233A.D.2d 316).” But I wanted to find a case that relates to Pennsylvania.

Back to Westlaw search query:

QUERY: "common law marriage" /s pennsylvania

RESULT: I got 45 documents. The sixth case was In re Catapano, 17 AD3d 672. From that case Igot: Although abolished in New York, “a common-law marriage contracted in a sister State will berecognized as valid here if it is valid where contracted” (Matter of Mott v. Duncan Petroleum Trans., 51N.Y.2d 289, 292; see Matter of Landolfi, 283 A.D.2d 497, 498; Tornese v. Tornese, 233 A.D.2d 316).

Page 24 of 27


THE THIRD QUESTION: If so, what is the standard to support the existence of the out-of-state common law marriage in New York?

The answer is found above in Catapano: The standard for proving the existence of an exchange ofwords to enter into a common-law marriage in the State of Pennsylvania requires clear and convincingevidence (see Matter of Landolfi, at 499).

Page 25 of 27


Sample Memo of Law

Benjamin CardozoLegal Research, Fall 2018, [Saturday] [Monday]


# Can a common law marriage be created in New York?# Will New York recognize a common law marriage contracted in Pennsylvania?# If so, what is the standard to prove the existence of the out-of-state common law marriage in New York?




A common-law marriage created in another State is recognized as valid in New York if it is validin the state where it was created (Matter of Catapano, 17 AD3d 672 [2d Dept 2005], citing Matter ofMott v Duncan Petroleum Trans., 51 NY2d 289, 292 [1980]; Matter of Landolfi, 283 AD2d 497, 498 [2dDept 2001]; Tornese v Tornese, 233 AD2d 316 [2d Dept 1996]). Under Pennsylvania law, a common-lawmarriage is created by an exchange of words between the couple in the present tense said in a mannerthat it is clear that they are creating the legal relationship of husband and wife (Catapano, 17 AD3d 672,citing Staudenmayer v Staudenmayer, 552 Pa 253, 261–262, 714 A2d 1016 [1998]; Landolfi, 283 AD2dat 499).



Research Trail

The First Question: Can a common law marriage be created in New York?

In Westlaw: Query: "common law marriage" /s creat! /s “new york”

RESULT: I got 12 cases. I looked through the cases and looked at the fourth case (Zunce v Rodriguez, 22Misc 3d 265). However this case did not give me the legal authority I was looking for.

Page 26 of 27


I looked at the fifth case (In re Estate of Gernold, 9 Misc 3d 427). The first sentence informed me that NewYork abolished common law marriages. So I looked at the first case in that paragraph: Mott v. Duncan PetroleumTrans., 51 NY2d 289, 292.

In that case I found Matter of Benjamin, 34 NY2d 27, 30. This case explained that common law marriagewas abolished in New York on April 29, 1933.

The Second Question: Will New York recognize a common law marriage contracted inPennsylvania?

I in the previous question part of the answer: “It is well settled that although abolished in New York, ‘acommon-law marriage contracted in a sister State will be recognized here as valid if it is valid where contracted’(Mott v. Duncan Petroleum Trans., 51 NY2d 289, 292; see also, Tornese v Tornese, 233 AD2d 316).” But I wantedto find a case that relates to Pennsylvania.

Back to Westlaw search query: QUERY: "common law marriage" /s pennsylvania

RESULT: I got 45 documents. The sixth case was Matter of Catapano, 17 AD3d 672. From that case I got:Although abolished in New York, “a common-law marriage contracted in a sister State will be recognized as validhere if it is valid where contracted” (Matter of Mott v Duncan Petroleum Trans., 51 N.Y.2d 289, 292; see Matter ofLandolfi, 283 AD2d 497, 498; Tornese v Tornese, 233 AD2d 316).

THE THIRD QUESTION: If so, what is the standard to support the existence of the out-of-statecommon law marriage in New York?

The answer is found above in Catapano: The standard for proving the existence of an exchange of words toenter into a common-law marriage in the State of Pennsylvania requires clear and convincing evidence (see Matterof Landolfi, at 499).

Page 27 of 27

Documents

Short Assignment Example Step-by-Step