Utah Court of Appeals
What evidence is required to establish a common-law marriage in Utah? Rivet v. Hoppie Explained
Summary
Julie Rivet petitioned to recognize a common-law marriage with Louis Hoppie after their years-long relationship ended. The district court found that while Rivet met four elements of common-law marriage, she failed to prove the parties held themselves out as husband and wife or acquired a uniform and general reputation as a married couple.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals in Rivet v. Hoppie clarified the evidentiary standards for establishing a common-law marriage, particularly focusing on the requirement that parties must hold themselves out as husband and wife with a uniform and general reputation as a married couple.
Background and Facts
Julie Rivet and Louis Hoppie maintained a relationship from 2009 until 2017, during which Hoppie proposed marriage four times but they never formally married. After separating in 2015, Rivet petitioned the district court in 2016 to recognize their relationship as a common-law marriage. The district court conducted three hearings and heard conflicting testimony from friends and family about the nature of the parties’ relationship.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether Rivet satisfied all elements of Utah Code section 30-1-4.5, specifically whether the parties held themselves out as husband and wife and acquired a uniform and general reputation as a married couple. The court also addressed preservation of error regarding excluded hearsay evidence.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The district court found Rivet satisfied four of the five required elements but failed on the final element requiring the parties to hold themselves out as married and acquire a uniform reputation as husband and wife. The Court of Appeals applied the clearly erroneous standard to factual findings and affirmed. The court emphasized that a partial or divided reputation of marriage is insufficient under Utah law, citing Hansen v. Hansen. Key factual findings showed the parties’ friends didn’t consider them married, they never wore wedding rings, never referred to each other as “husband” or “wife,” and Hoppie consistently opposed listing Rivet as a spouse on legal documents.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that common-law marriage claims require consistent and public conduct demonstrating marital status. Practitioners should gather comprehensive evidence of how parties presented themselves to family, friends, and the community. The court’s treatment of inadequately briefed issues also demonstrates the importance of thoroughly challenging each contested finding on appeal or risk having unchallenged findings assumed to be supported by the record.
Case Details
Case Name
Rivet v. Hoppie
Citation
2020 UT App 21
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20181018-CA
Date Decided
February 13, 2020
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A petitioner fails to establish a common-law marriage under Utah Code section 30-1-4.5(1)(e) when the parties did not hold themselves out as husband and wife and did not acquire a uniform and general reputation as a married couple.
Standard of Review
Clearly erroneous standard for findings of fact; accuracy of legal conclusions and application of law reviewed for correctness
Practice Tip
When challenging factual findings on appeal, appellants must adequately brief each contested finding or the court will assume the record supports the unchallenged findings.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.