Colorado Supreme Court Clarifies Common Law Marriage in Estate Dispute

Background

When Viacheslav Yudkin died intestate, his former spouse, Svetlana Shtutman, was appointed personal representative of his estate. Tatsiana Dareuskaya, who had lived with Yudkin for eight years until his death, sought Shtutman’s removal, claiming she was Yudkin’s common law wife and therefore had statutory priority to serve as personal representative under section 15-12-203(1)(b)-(e), C.R.S. (2020). The probate court magistrate held an evidentiary hearing to determine whether a common law marriage existed between Yudkin and Dareuskaya.

Probate Court Findings

At the hearing, Dareuskaya testified that Yudkin gave her a ring six years before his death and told her they could be husband and wife if she agreed, which she did. She stated that she wore the ring and that the two presented themselves publicly as married. Multiple witnesses, including friends, neighbors, and coworkers, testified that they believed Yudkin and Dareuskaya were a married couple. Yudkin’s father and ex-wife, however, testified otherwise.

The magistrate found that Yudkin and Dareuskaya cohabitated, shared expenses, and held themselves out as married to friends and neighbors, though not to their families. Nevertheless, the magistrate determined that they were not common law married, citing several factors: they filed separate tax returns, did not hold joint property or financial accounts, did not share a last name, and had no joint children. The magistrate emphasized the separate tax filings as “extremely relevant,” concluding that Dareuskaya had not proven the existence of a common law marriage.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Colorado Court of Appeals reversed. It interpreted People v. Lucero (1987), the leading case on common law marriage, to mean that cohabitation and a reputation in the community as spouses were dispositive. The court held that once those factors were shown, a finding of marriage was required and that other evidence was legally irrelevant. The case was remanded with instructions to enter a decree of common law marriage.

Colorado Supreme Court Review

Shtutman petitioned for certiorari, arguing that the appellate court misapplied Lucero and that the magistrate never found mutual consent to be married. The Colorado Supreme Court granted review to clarify the state’s test for common law marriage. On the same day, the Court issued In re Marriage of Hogsett & Neale (2021), which refined the Lucero framework to reflect social and legal changes in marriage.

Under the updated test, a common law marriage may be established through mutual consent or agreement to enter the legal and social institution of marriage, followed by conduct manifesting that agreement. The key question is whether the parties intended to enter a marital relationship—a committed, supportive partnership of mutual obligation. The Court emphasized that no single factor is dispositive and that all evidence must be viewed in context.

Legal Analysis

Applying this standard, the Supreme Court found ambiguity in the magistrate’s findings. While the magistrate determined that Yudkin and Dareuskaya agreed to hold themselves out as married, it was unclear whether they mutually agreed to enter a marital relationship. The Court explained that factors such as joint property ownership, shared finances, or joint tax returns remain relevant but are not controlling. Likewise, differences in surnames, absence of shared children, or separate finances do not automatically disprove intent to marry.

The Court remanded the case for reconsideration under the refined Hogsett test, instructing the probate court to assess whether Yudkin and Dareuskaya agreed to share a life together as spouses and to evaluate all conduct in light of their personal, cultural, and relational context. The Court vacated the appellate decision, holding that a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis governs common law marriage determinations in Colorado.

Court’s Ruling

On January 11, 2021, the Colorado Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the probate court. The lower court was directed to reconsider whether Yudkin and Dareuskaya had formed a common law marriage consistent with the updated framework established in In re Marriage of Hogsett & Neale.

Assistance with Estate Planning Matters

If you need guidance on estate administration or probate, Whitcomb, Selinsky PC assists with estate planning cases. Contact our team to learn how we can help you protect your estate and clarify your legal rights.