What timing requirements apply to Utah common law marriage claims? Greaves v. Baker Explained

The Utah Supreme Court in Greaves v. Baker addressed critical timing requirements for establishing unsolemnized marriages under Utah law, providing important clarity for family law practitioners.

Background and Facts

Jody Greaves filed suit against Jerry Baker on February 5, 1998, seeking to establish an unsolemnized marriage. Baker moved to dismiss, arguing that Greaves’ claim was not adjudicated within one year as required by Utah Code section 30-1-4.5. The trial court denied Baker’s motion, ruling that the one-year adjudication requirement was unconstitutional under the open courts provision and unenforceable on public policy and equity grounds. Baker filed a second motion to dismiss, arguing the entire statute was unenforceable, which the trial court also denied.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was interpreting Utah Code section 30-1-4.5’s requirement that an unsolemnized marriage be recognized by court or administrative order during the relationship “or within one year following the termination of that relationship.” Baker argued this required complete adjudication within one year, while the trial court found this requirement problematic on constitutional and policy grounds.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Supreme Court relied on its precedent in In re Marriage of Gonzalez, which held that section 30-1-4.5 “requires only the filing of a petition for adjudication of marriage within one year after the termination of the relationship.” Because Gonzalez was controlling precedent, the constitutional and policy concerns raised by the trial court became moot. The Court affirmed both trial court orders denying Baker’s motions to dismiss.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that Utah’s common law marriage statute requires only timely filing of the petition, not completion of adjudication within the one-year window. Practitioners should ensure clients file petitions for unsolemnized marriage recognition within one year of relationship termination, but need not worry about completing the entire adjudication process within that timeframe. The dissent’s emphasis on the statute’s “plain language” suggests this interpretation may face future challenges.