SSR 68-63: SECTION 216(h)(1)(B). -- RELATIONSHIP -- PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY OF A MARRIAGE SOLEMNIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE JURISDICTION -- PRESUMPTION OF CONTINUANCE OF VALID MARRIAGE

20 CFR 404.1101

SSR 68-63

Under Ohio law, there is a presumption that the status of parties to the first marriage continues and the burden of overcoming the presumption is on the party claiming validity of the second marriage. Accordingly, where the claimant married the worker believing in good faith that a valid marriage resulted from the ceremony and she lived with him in Ohio until his death, unaware of any impediment to their marriage, but where as claimant for widow's benefits based on the worker's earnings record, she could not establish the dissolution of the worker's prior marriage, held, she does not have the status of widow under section 216(h)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act. However, she is the widow of the worker under section 216(h)(1)(B) of the Act, since (1) in good faith she went through a marriage ceremony with the worker resulting in a purported marriage between them which but for a legal impediment not know to her at the time of the ceremony would have been a valid marriage, (2) she and the worker were living in the same household at the time of his death, and (3) at the time claimant filed her application, there was no other person who met the requirements of section 216(h)91)(A) of the Act and who was or had been entitled to wife's, widow's, or mother's insurance benefits on the worker's earnings record.

R, a fully insured worker, died in 1965 domiciled in the State of Ohio. At the time of R's death, he and W were living in the same household. W filed application for widow's insurance benefits and presented, in support of her claim, evidence of a ceremonial marriage to R in 1947. At the time of this marriage, R had represented himself as unmarried and W entered into the marriage unaware of the worker's prior marriages. It was not until after R's death that W learned of R's prior marriages. W was unable to submit evidence to establish termination of these earlier marriages. However, at the time of W's application, there was no other person who met the requirements of section 216(h)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act and who was or had been entitled to wife's widow's, or mother's insurance benefits on R's earnings record.

Section 216(h)(1)(A) of the Act provides that a woman is the widow of a worker for purposes of widow's insurance benefits if the courts of the State in which he was domiciled at the time of his death wound find either (1) that the worker and she were validly married at that time, or (2) that she would have the same status as a widow for purposes of sharing in the distribution of his intestate personal property.

However, under section 216(h)(1)(B) of the Act, a claimant who does not meet the requirements of section 216(h)91)(A), may nevertheless have the status of a worker's widow, as provided in pertinent part, below:

(B) In any case where under subparagraph (A) an applicant is not (and is not deemed to be) the * * * widow * * * of a fully or currently insured individual * * * but it is established to the satisfaction of the Secretary that such applicant in good faith went through a marriage ceremony with such individual resulting in a purported marriage between them which, but for a legal impediment not known to the applicant at the time of such ceremony, would have been a valid marriage, and such applicant and the insured individual were living in the same household at the time of the death of such insured individual * * * such purported marriage shall be deemed a valid marriage. The provisions of the preceding sentence shall not apply * * * if another person is or has been entitled to a benefit * * * on the basis of the wages and self-employment income of such insured individual and such other person is (or is deemed to be) a wife * * * [or] widow * * * of such insured individual under subparagraph (A) at the time such applicant files the application * * *. For purposes of this subparagraph, a legal impediment to the validity of a purported marriage includes only an impediment (i) resulting from the lack of dissolution of a previous marriage or otherwise arising out of such previous marriage or its dissolution, or (ii) resulting from a defect in the procedure followed in connection with such purported marriage.

The question thus presented is whether W is the widow of the worker and entitled to widow's insurance benefits based on his earnings record.

Two conflicting presumptions are brought into play in considering opposing claims to the validity of a first and second marriage under the law of Ohio. these presumptions are: (1) that a marriage solemnized in accordance with the laws of the jurisdiction where it occurs is presumed to be valid; and (2) that a marriage which has been properly and legally solemnized is presumed to continue, in the absence of evidence that it was terminated by death or by a decree of dissolution by a court of competent jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Ohio discussed these two conflicting presumptions in the case of Industrial Commission of Ohio v. Dell, et al, 135 N.E. 669, 673 (Ohio, 1922). In holding that where both marriages have been lawfully solemnized and he record is silent as to whether there has been a divorce of the parties to the first marriage, there is a presumption that the status of the parties to the first marriage continues and the burden is upon the parties claiming the validity of the second marriage to overcome such presumption, the court stated, in pertinent part:

If both of these presumptions could be indulged without either doing any harm to the other, it would be the best solution to the problem, but unfortunately in order for one presumption to be indulged it is necessary in many instances that the other must be violated. It has been said that to indulge the presumption of the continued existence of the former marriage would place on the second wife the burden of proving a negative, to wit, that the first wife was not dead or that she was not divorced. This view entirely losses sight of the fact that to indulge the presumption of the validity of the second marriage places upon the first wife the burden of proving a negative, to wit, that, no decree of divorce has been awarded.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals considered the Ohio rule in the case of Domany v. Otis Elevator, 369 Fed.2d 604 (1966), cert. den. 387 U.S. 942 (1967), stating at page 612:

The Federal District Court is bound to follow the Ohio rule that places the burden of proving the dissolution of the first marriage on the party asserting the validity of the second marriage. * * *

Since R was domiciled in Ohio at the time of his death, the Ohio law is applicable in this case. The Ohio rule places the burden on the second or subsequent wife to prove the validity of her marriage. Since the evidence established R's prior marriages but not their dissolution, W could not under the law of Ohio, be found to be his legal widow. W does not, therefore, satisfy the requirements of section 216(h)(1)(A). However, W went through a marriage ceremony with R in good faith believing that a valid marriage resulted from the ceremony. She had no knowledge of his previous marriages at the time of the ceremony. R and W were living in the same household at the time of R's death. At the time W filed her application, there was no other person who met the requirements of section 216(h)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act and who was or had been entitled to wife's, widow's, or mother's insurance benefits on R's earnings record.

Accordingly, it is held that the marriage of W and R is deemed a valid marriage pursuant to section 216(h)(1)(B) of the Social Security Act and therefore W is R's widow for purposes of entitlement to widow's insurance benefits.

Back to Table of Contents