The Montana Supreme Court affirmed a district court’s ruling that a couple were common-law spouses and the surviving spouse was entitled to an elective share of the deceased spouse’s estate. In re Estate of Hudson, DA 24-0645 (Mont. Oct. 7, 2025).
Carol Hudson and Doug Nail began a relationship in 2006 or 2007. After they moved from California to Montana in 2008 and 2009, they began living together. Doug was separated from his second wife until his divorce was finalized in 2010. Carol purchased two properties titled in her name only. Doug helped with the construction of and budgeting for a new home on one of the parcels. They socialized and hosted events for family and friends together.
Carol died in 2018, leaving most of her estate to her two sons from a prior relationship in her will and through a revocable trust. When probate proceedings commenced, Doug claimed that he and Carol had been common-law spouses and that he was entitled to an elective share of her augmented estate. Carol’s son AJ sought a declaration that Doug was not Carol’s husband. The district court found that Carol and Doug were common-law spouses and that Doug was entitled to an elective share of her estate. AJ appealed.
The Montana Supreme Court noted that Montana law favors finding a valid marriage and establishes a strong rebuttable presumption that a man and woman who deport themselves as husband and wife have entered into a valid marriage contract. To prove the existence of a common-law marriage, Doug had to establish that he and Carol were competent to marry, had mutually consented to a marriage relationship, and had confirmed the marriage by cohabitation and public repute. The parties did not dispute that Doug and Carol were competent to marry following Doug’s divorce and that they cohabited.
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to Doug, the court found that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Doug and Carol had mutually consented to a marriage relationship. Doug testified that they had agreed to marry and that he had given Carol jewelry symbolizing their commitment. In addition, documents showed that Carol had listed Doug as her common-law husband and as the beneficiary of her life insurance and retirement account. The court concluded that the district court’s assignment of less weight to AJ’s evidence—which included documents in which the couple described themselves as single, Carol’s statements that she did not want to remarry, and Carol seeking advice to protect her assets if the relationship ended—was not a mistake or the result of a misapprehension of the effect of the evidence.
In addition, the court determined that the district court had not clearly erred in finding that Doug and Carol had confirmed their marriage by public repute. The court found that the community, including friends with whom they frequently socialized, believed they were in a traditional marriage and were surprised to learn otherwise. In addition, Doug and Carol engaged in outdoor sports, built a house, hosted friends and family at their home, and were referred to as “Grandpa” and “stepmom” by each other’s children and grandchildren. In the court’s view, AJ’s evidence that Carol and Doug filed taxes as single people and identified themselves as single on financial statements, bank applications, and medical records—documents submitted to governmental or financial entities the court did not consider public—was unpersuasive.
The court affirmed the district court’s ruling that Doug and Carol were common-law spouses at Carol’s death and that Doug was entitled to file for an elective share of Carol’s estate.
Subscribe to the Knowledge Bank.
