August 31, 2012

Common Law Marriage Invalidated Declaratory Judgment / Collateral Estoppel

Common Law Marriage Invalidated   Declaratory Judgment / Collateral Estoppel

Nancy appealed from the trial court order that granted Cort’s petition for declaratory judgment pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 3306. Nancy and Cort began living together in September 1990. Three children were born of this relationship. In November 2006, Nancy filed a complaint for child and spousal support against Cort, alleging that she and Cort had a common law marriage. A conference was held before a hearing officer on April 9, 2007, at which both parties and Cort’s attorney appeared. After questioning of the parties, the hearing officer determined that the parties never had a ceremony where vows were exchanged; therefore, no common-law marriage existed between the parties.

On May 1, 2007, the trial court adopted the hearing officer’s recommendations and disposed of Nancy’s complaint in an interim order that denied her spousal support. Nancy did not request a hearing de novo or file exceptions. On January 14, 2011, Nancy filed a second complaint, requesting a divorce from Cort. Cort filed an answer on February 23, 2011, denying that the parties were husband and wife. That same day, Cort also filed a petition for declaratory judgment, stating that the parties did not have a valid marriage because Nancy had not appealed or requested a hearing de novo from the May 2007 order, and therefore, she was collaterally estopped from later asserting that the parties were married. The trial court then entered an order that granted Cort’s petition for declaratory judgment on the basis of the collateral estoppel. That doctrine applies if:

(1) the issue decided in the prior case is identical to one presented in the later case;

(2) there was a final judgment on the merits; (3) the party against whom the plea is asserted was a party or in privity with a party in the prior case; (4) the party or person privy to the party against whom the doctrine is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior proceeding and (5) the determination in the prior proceeding was essential to the judgment.

With respect to actions for support, Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1910.12 states that a hearing officer “shall receive evidence, hear argument and file with the court a report containing a recommendation with respect to the entry of an order of support.” Pa.R.C.P. 1910.12(d). “The court, without hearing the parties, shall enter an interim order consistent with the proposed order of the hearing officer.” Pa.R.C.P. 1910.12(e). Following the entry of an interim order, Rule 1910.12 provides that, within 20 days after the date of receipt or the date of mailing of the report by the hearing officer, whichever occurs first, any party may file exceptions to the report or any part of it. Matters not covered by exceptions are deemed waived. If no exceptions are filed within the 20-day period, the interim order will constitute a final order. Since Nancy failed to appeal from the final order, the doctrine of collateral estoppel applied to this divorce action. Vignola v. Vignola, 39 A.3d