Hargrave Case

#1). Why did the court in the Hargrave case (Text p. 173) find that Karen Hargrave was not, in fact, married to the decedent, Duval?

Common-law marriages were statutorily abrogated in South Dakota in 1959 by an amendment to the SDCL 25-1-29. The ammended statute provided that any marriage contracted outside the jurisdiction of this state which is valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which such marriage was contracted, is valid in this state.

In addition to this ammended statute, South Dekota also adopted the requirements of common-law marriage set forth in Brooks v. Sanders, which states, to constitute a vaild common-law marriage there must be an actual and mutual concent to enter into a materimonial relationship, partiems must be of legal age, parties must co-habitate togeather, hold them-selfs out to the public as a married couple, and be reconized by the

Instead, the court found that the couple enter into to an implied agreement, based on Hargrave’s testimony. On cross eximination, Hargrave testified that there was never an agreement between her and Duval to be married. Her testimony showed that no specific time existed when the couple mutually agreed, or decleared their intent to be married. The courl ruled that for a Common Law marriage to be valid a couple must show more than an implicit agreement to be married. Hargrave v. Duval-Couetil, 777 N.W.2d 380 (South Dakota 2010).

What rule of law emerged from your reading of this case regarding the existence of a common law marriage?

A common-Law marriage valid in the state where it was entered into, is to be regarded as valid in another state that as long as the legal requirements of those states have been met .

If the common law marriage of Hargrave and Duval had been valid, would the marriage have been deemed valid in Massachusetts? Why or why