 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Death of Bill David Boyd5/15/1998
Mandate Issued: July 24, 1998
RELEASE FOR PUBLICATION BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
IN THE MATTER OF THE DEATH OF BILL DAVID BOYD, TAMMY T. BOYD, Petitioner,
v.
MONSEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, and THE WORKER'S COMPENSATION COURT, Respondents.
PROCEEDING TO REVIEW AN ORDER OF A THREE-JUDGE JUDGES OF THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT
SUSTAINED
Petitioner, Tammy Boyd, filed a claim before the Workers Compensation Court for benefits resulting from the death of her husband in a work-related accident. That claim lead to an award of death benefits on April 24, 1990, and continuing weekly payments at a rate of $173.58. These benefits continued until October 9, 1996, when they were terminated pursuant to an agreement between the parties, which is not reflected by the record, but noted by the Respondent in its brief.
This proceeding to terminate death benefits was filed on August 23, 1996, by Respondent asking for repayment of less than a week's benefits and termination of further payments by reason of a remarriage. Claimant sought a determination that the benefits were properly payable and she is thus entitled to accrued benefits plus interest. When the cause proceeded to trial, the trial Judge found the Respondent had met its burden of proof that Claimant had entered into a common-law marriage and awarded Respondent credit for an overpayment of death benefits equivalent to six days benefit. The trial Judge additionally found the Claimant and Carlos Mahoney not to be credible witnesses on the issue of their common-law marriage because of their obvious bias and motivation to deceive the Respondent. The matter was appealed to a three-Judge panel. The panel unanimously affirmed the trial court's Conclusion that Claimant had entered into a common-law marriage. Claimant then brought this review proceeding.
More precisely, the trial Judge found that Claimant "knowingly entered into a Declaration of Common Law Marriage on October 3, 1992." The declaration came into being as a result of Claimant's cohabitation with Carlos Mahoney in 1992, and Claimant's ensuing pregnancy in the fall. The two of them executed an affidavit of common-law marriage to cover the impending birth of their child under Mr. Mahoney's health insurance with Halliburton Services which was notarized. Claimant testified she understood that, in the document, she attested to the fact that the information provided therein was true and correct, and the information was to be relied upon by others. She testified she lives with Mr. Mahoney; pays no rent; cares for their child and his child from a previous marriage; and, has assumed household duties for the children. She also testified they own a house, which is rented, and title is in both their names, as single people, although the house in which they live is in Mr. Mahoney's name only. Claimant has a life insurance policy which lists Mr. Mahoney as the primary beneficiary and the above-mentioned children as contingent beneficiaries. Lastly, Claimant admitted in testimony that she and Mr. Mahoney had been introduced as husband and wife.
Claimant proposes error exists in this cause because the affidavit above-mentioned is insufficient to establish a common law marriage, and thus, there is no competent evidence to support the decision of the trial court (and presumably the three-Judge panel). We hold the affidavit is competent evidence from which the lower court could find written proof of actual and mutual agreement between the parties to be husband and wife, which satisfies one of the criteria for determination that a common-law marriage existed between the parties. The Pe
Page 1 2 Oklahoma Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|