Coon v. Tuerk

2012 DRB 002984 (District of Columbia 2014)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P and D met in a pet store in 1994 and they started dating shortly thereafter. They were involved in a romantic relationship for 18 years. They ceased cohabitating in March of 2012 when D forced P to vacate the home. P had purchased Tiffany & Co. rings and, while the parties were in bed together on Valentine’s Day in 1998, asked D to marry him. D said that he was not ready and he would let P know when he was ready to be married. In May of 1999, both were finally ready and P testified that he clearly remembered the words exchanged this day, although D testified that he did not remember the specific words he used. P testified that D said words to the effect of yes, I will be your husband for the rest of our lives, and D said the same. The parties then put the rings on. P said yes as to marriage and P also said at that moment that they were now married. they wore the rings for the remainder of their cohabitation. D claimed that neither he nor P agreed to be married upon exchanging rings in May of 1999. D claimed it was not a good idea marrying P because of P's financial instability, and D's desire to avoid being associated with P’s poor financial reputation among friends and colleagues, P’s recreational drug and alcohol use, and P’s prior thefts from business associates. D often told P that he did not want to marry. P and D cohabitated both prior and subsequent to the May 1999 event. P and D went to the home of P’s mother with their rings in the mid-to-late-90s, and the mother testified that from that point forward, they always wore the rings. D told P's mother that he bought the rings and they were markers of the parties’ marriage. The mother testified that the parties were cohabitating at this time. P and D were one of the stars of Al and Tipper Gore's book about the changing face of the American family. P and D and their adopted children were featured in the book. To quote the book: “The way they see it, theirs is a hometown story, really. They each married the guy around the corner. They point out that the really unusual thing is that both sets of their parents are still together!” D did not object to the book’s characterization of them as married. P introduced a series of photographs that show the parties together, separately, and with their children while wearing rings on their left-hand wedding ring finger. P also introduced photographs of the parties taken on or about Christmas of 2010, Christmas of 2011, July 4th of 2011, and a family reunion the summer of 2011, all of which show the parties wearing the rings. D handwrote a letter to P sometime in 2010 or prior concerning the process of the parties putting together a “post nupe pre nup,” which it appears D meant to be an agreement of distribution of assets and debt should their relationship end. P and D signed a typewritten document dated August 24, 2010, which explains division of rights, profits, and privileges pertaining to the parties’ real property in the event their relationship ends. D underwent major treatment for cancer and P was present with him for a total of three surgeries. P presented himself there as D’s husband. The parties never registered as domestic partners, obtained a marriage license, or had a formal marriage ceremony. Upon transferring P’s interest as a joint tenant in a Property to D, D paid $15,407.44 in transfer taxes on P’s behalf with full knowledge that no transfer taxes would be due were the parties formally married. They never filed joint federal or state income tax returns. P filed as head of household on his federal income tax returns.