Colorado
Common Law Marriage in Colorado: Requirements & How It Works (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 18, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 18, 2026. How we verify our legal content

Colorado recognizes common law marriage. Under the framework established by the Colorado Supreme Court in In re Marriage of Hogsett & Neale, 2021 CO 1, a couple forms a valid common law marriage when both parties mutually intend to be married and conduct their lives in a way that manifests that intent. No minimum number of years of cohabitation is required.
Information last verified on June 2, 2026.
Explore related Colorado family law: See Colorado alimony (spousal maintenance) laws and Colorado child support laws for the financial obligations that attach once a marriage (including a common law marriage) ends.
Does Colorado recognize common law marriage?
Yes. Colorado is one of a small number of US states that still permits couples to form a new common law marriage. A common law marriage is a legally valid marriage formed without a marriage license or solemnization ceremony. The couple must meet the requirements described below. Once formed, the marriage is legally identical to any other Colorado marriage.
Colorado has recognized common law marriage for well over a century. The modern statutory foundation appears in , which establishes the minimum age requirement for common law marriages entered on or after September 1, 2006. The Colorado Supreme Court most recently addressed the full legal test in In re Marriage of Hogsett & Neale, 2021 CO 1, where the court updated and clarified the standard that courts apply when one party asserts that a common law marriage existed.
Because Colorado is a common law marriage state, its courts regularly adjudicate claims that a common law marriage was formed, particularly in dissolution, probate, and benefit proceedings.
The requirements for a Colorado common law marriage
Under In re Marriage of Hogsett & Neale, 2021 CO 1, a Colorado common law marriage requires two elements:

- Mutual intent to be married. Both parties must have a present, mutual agreement that they are married to each other. The intent must be shared; one party cannot unilaterally create a marriage.
- Conduct that manifests that intent. The parties must behave in ways that are consistent with and reflective of that marital intent.
The court in Hogsett explicitly moved away from a checklist approach and toward a totality-of-the-circumstances inquiry. No single factor is required and no single factor is conclusive. The court examines the full picture of the relationship.
Factors that courts have found relevant include:
- Cohabitation (living together)
- Referring to each other as spouses in public (holding out)
- Filing joint federal or state income tax returns as a married couple
- Holding joint bank accounts or jointly titled property
- Naming each other as spouse or beneficiary on insurance policies, retirement accounts, or estate documents
- Community reputation as a married couple among family, friends, and colleagues
- Using a shared surname
None of these factors is mandatory. A couple that never filed a joint tax return may still have a valid common law marriage if other strong evidence of mutual marital intent exists. Conversely, sharing a bank account alone does not establish a common law marriage if the mutual intent element is absent.
The minimum age requirement
requires that both parties be at least 18 years of age for a common law marriage entered on or after September 1, 2006. A purported common law marriage in which either party was under 18 at the time of formation will not be recognized as valid in Colorado.
How Hogsett changed the law
In re Marriage of Hogsett & Neale, 2021 CO 1 modernized the test that had been in place since People v. Lucero, 747 P.2d 660 (Colo. 1987). The older Lucero framework relied heavily on a specific list of factors, with cohabitation and holding out given particular weight. Hogsett replaced that more mechanical approach with an expressly flexible, context-sensitive inquiry. The court observed that rigid formulas are poorly suited to evaluating the varied ways in which couples structure their lives together in the modern era. After Hogsett, Colorado courts ask whether the totality of the evidence demonstrates mutual intent and conduct consistent with marriage, rather than checking items off a list.
The seven-year myth
One of the most persistent misconceptions about common law marriage is that couples must live together for seven years (or some other fixed period) before a common law marriage arises. This is false. No state sets a minimum number of years of cohabitation as a requirement for common law marriage, and Colorado is no exception. The duration of cohabitation is one piece of evidence that a court may consider in assessing the totality of the circumstances, but a couple could form a valid common law marriage after a far shorter period if the mutual-intent-and-conduct test is otherwise satisfied.
How you prove a Colorado common law marriage
Proving a common law marriage typically becomes necessary in the context of a dissolution proceeding, a probate claim, a wrongful-death action, a Social Security survivor benefit claim, or a spousal-privilege dispute. Because no license or certificate exists, the party asserting the marriage must establish it through other evidence.
Evidence courts find persuasive in Colorado common law marriage cases includes:
- Joint tax returns: Federal and Colorado income tax returns filed with a married-filing-jointly status are among the strongest indicators. The parties signed those returns under penalty of perjury, which makes them highly credible evidence of how the parties characterized their own relationship.
- Joint financial accounts and property: Bank accounts, mortgages, leases, and vehicle titles in both names support the inference of a shared marital household.
- Beneficiary and emergency contact designations: Naming the other person as spouse on employer benefits, life insurance, retirement accounts, or hospital emergency-contact forms reflects an intent to treat the relationship as a marriage.
- Affidavits from third parties: Statements from family members, friends, neighbors, and colleagues who describe the couple as married in their social community.
- Correspondence and communications: Texts, emails, social media posts, or holiday cards that describe the other party as a spouse or use the word "husband" or "wife."
- Government records: Mortgage applications and immigration documents in which a party listed the other as spouse can also be relevant.
Because the evidence is fact-specific, a party disputing a common law marriage claim will present counter-evidence showing that one or both parties lacked mutual marital intent, for example by producing evidence that one party consistently described the relationship as non-marital or refused to hold out as married.
Does a Colorado common law marriage have the same legal effect as a ceremonial marriage?
Yes. A validly formed Colorado common law marriage is legally indistinguishable from a marriage performed with a license and ceremony. The legal consequences are identical:
- Marital property rights: Spouses have rights in marital property acquired during the marriage under Colorado's equitable-distribution framework.
- Spousal maintenance: Either spouse may seek spousal maintenance (alimony) under C.R.S. section 14-10-114 upon dissolution.
- Intestate inheritance: A surviving common law spouse inherits under Colorado's intestacy statutes (C.R.S. section 15-11-102) just as a ceremonially married surviving spouse would.
- Spousal privilege: A common law spouse holds the same evidentiary privilege not to testify against the other spouse.
- Wrongful-death standing: A common law spouse may bring a wrongful-death claim under C.R.S. section 13-21-202.
- Health-care decisions: A common law spouse may serve as a surrogate decision-maker under Colorado's Medical Treatment Decision Act.
- Dissolution only by divorce: A common law marriage ends only through a formal dissolution or divorce proceeding under the Colorado Uniform Dissolution of Marriage Act. The couple cannot simply agree to end the marriage by deciding they are no longer married. If the parties separate and then one attempts to marry someone else, the earlier common law marriage must first be legally dissolved.
Does Colorado recognize an out-of-state common law marriage?
Yes. Colorado recognizes a common law marriage that was validly formed in another state that permitted its formation at the time. This principle derives from the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution and from traditional conflict-of-laws comity principles. If a couple formed a valid common law marriage in Texas, Iowa, or another state that recognized common law marriage, Colorado courts will treat that marriage as valid even if the couple later moves to Colorado.

This rule is important for couples who may have formed a common law marriage in a now-abolishing state before that state's cutoff date. For example, a couple that formed a valid common law marriage in Pennsylvania before January 1, 2005 (Pennsylvania's abolition date) retains a recognized marriage in Colorado.
Conversely, a couple that lived their entire relationship in a state that never recognized common law marriage cannot retroactively claim a Colorado common law marriage simply by moving to Colorado.
How does a Colorado common law marriage end?
A Colorado common law marriage ends in one way only: formal dissolution (divorce) under the Colorado Uniform Dissolution of Marriage Act ( et seq.). The process is identical to dissolving a ceremonial marriage. The parties file a petition for dissolution of marriage in Colorado district court, provided one spouse has been domiciled in the state for at least 91 days before the petition is filed ((1)(a)(I)).
Colorado is a no-fault dissolution state. Neither party needs to prove wrongdoing; the only ground for dissolution is that the marriage is "irretrievably broken" (C.R.S. section 14-10-110).
There is no such thing as a "common law divorce" or a way to informally dissolve a common law marriage by simply agreeing to separate, ceasing cohabitation, or beginning a new relationship. Until a court enters a decree of dissolution, the common law marriage legally continues. A party who enters a subsequent ceremonial marriage without first dissolving a prior common law marriage commits bigamy under .
For the legal and financial consequences of dissolution, see our guide to Colorado alimony laws and Colorado child support laws.
For a state-by-state comparison of where common law marriage is and is not recognized, see Common law marriage by state.
Disclaimer: This page provides general legal information about Colorado common law marriage for educational purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Whether a common law marriage was formed in any particular situation is a highly fact-specific question. If you are involved in a dissolution, probate, benefits dispute, or any other proceeding in which a common law marriage may be relevant, consult a licensed Colorado family law attorney for guidance on your individual circumstances. Information last verified on June 2, 2026.

Last updated: June 2, 2026.
More Colorado Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Colorado recognize common law marriage?
Yes. Colorado is one of a small number of states that still permits couples to form a new common law marriage. The Colorado Supreme Court most recently addressed the requirements in In re Marriage of Hogsett and Neale (2021 CO 1). A valid common law marriage has the same legal effect as a ceremonially performed marriage.
How long do you have to live together to have a common law marriage in Colorado?
There is no minimum period of cohabitation. The seven-year rule is a myth. No state, including Colorado, sets a specific number of years. What matters under the Hogsett test is whether both parties mutually intended to be married and conducted their lives in a way that manifested that intent.
What are the requirements for a common law marriage in Colorado?
Under In re Marriage of Hogsett and Neale (2021 CO 1), the requirements are: (1) a mutual, present intent by both parties to be married, and (2) conduct that manifests that intent, such as cohabitation, holding out publicly as spouses, filing joint tax returns, and sharing finances. Both parties must be at least 18 years old (C.R.S. section 14-2-109.5). No single factor is required or conclusive.
How do you prove a common law marriage in Colorado?
Courts look at the totality of the circumstances. Strong evidence includes joint income tax returns filed as married, joint bank accounts or jointly titled property, naming each other as spouse on beneficiary designations or insurance forms, and the testimony of family, friends, and colleagues who know the couple as married. Because there is no marriage certificate, multiple types of evidence are typically combined.
How do you end a common law marriage in Colorado?
A Colorado common law marriage ends only through a formal dissolution of marriage proceeding in Colorado district court, identical to the process for ending a ceremonial marriage (C.R.S. section 14-10-106). There is no informal way to dissolve a common law marriage by agreement or by separating. Entering a subsequent marriage without a decree of dissolution constitutes bigamy under C.R.S. section 18-6-201.
Does Colorado recognize a common law marriage formed in another state?
Yes. Colorado recognizes a common law marriage validly formed in any state that permitted it at the time it was formed, under Full Faith and Credit principles. For example, a couple that formed a valid common law marriage in Texas or Iowa retains a recognized marriage when they move to Colorado.
What is the difference between the Hogsett test and the old Lucero test for Colorado common law marriage?
People v. Lucero (1987) used a more mechanical checklist approach that weighted cohabitation and public holding out heavily. In re Marriage of Hogsett and Neale (2021 CO 1) replaced that with a flexible, totality-of-the-circumstances inquiry focused on mutual intent to be married and conduct manifesting that intent. No single factor is required under the Hogsett test, and courts must examine the full picture of the relationship.
Updates
Corrected the citation for the controlling Colorado Supreme Court case to In re Marriage of Hogsett & Neale, 2021 CO 1 (it was misstated as 2021 CO 5 throughout the page), replaced a dead link to that opinion, and fixed the divorce-filing domicile rule to correctly cite C.R.S. 14-10-106(1)(a)(I) and describe it as 91 days of domicile in Colorado rather than in a specific county.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Colorado Revised Statutes, Title 14: Domestic Matters
§ 14-10-106Dissolution of marriage - legal separationIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) (a) The district court shall enter a decree of dissolution of marriage or a decree of legal separation when: (I) The court finds that one of the parties has been domiciled in this state for ninety-one days next preceding the commencement of the proceeding; (II) The court finds that the marriage is irretrievably broken; and (III) The court finds that ninety-one days or more have elapsed since it acquired jurisdiction over the respondent either as the result of process pursuant to rule 4 of the Colorado rules of civil procedure or as the result of the act of the respondent in joining as copetitioner in the petition or in entering an appearance in any other manner.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at olls.info
Cited in 1 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2020
Leading cases:
- Edwards v. Edwards (District Court, D. Colorado 2020)“…on for Dissolution of Marriage Without Children Pursuant to C.R.S. 14-10-106. See (Doc. # 1 at 1). The parties have…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Colorado Divorce Laws (2026): Grounds, Residency, and Process
§ 14-10-107Commencement - pleadings - abolition of existing defenses - automatic, temporary injunction - enforcementIn force
(1) All proceedings under this article shall be commenced in the manner provided by the Colorado rules of civil procedure. (2) The petition in a proceeding for dissolution of marriage or legal separation shall allege that the marriage is irretrievably broken and shall set forth: (a) The residence of each party and the length of residence in this state; (b) The date and place of the marriage; (c) The date on which the parties separated; (d) The names, ages, and addresses of any living children of the marriage and whether the wife is pregnant; (e) Any arrangements as to the allocation of parental responsibilities with respect to the children of the marriage and support of the children and the maintenance of a spouse; (f) The relief sought; and (g) A written acknowledgment by the petitioner and the co-petitioner, if any, that he or she has received a copy of, has read, and understands the terms of the automatic temporary injunction required by paragraph (b) of subsection (4) of this section.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at olls.info
Cited in 3 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2011
Leading cases:
- People v. McNamara (Supreme Court of Colorado 2011, 275 P.3d 792)“…Respondent argued that a temporary injunetion pursuant to CRS. § 14-10-107 was in effect, which prohibited either…”
- Bear v. Sitlington (Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 2001, 20 F. App'x 551)“…ling, or in any way disposing of ... any marital property.” C.R.S. 14-10-107(4)(b)(I)(A). However, there is more to…”
- Montero v. Meyer (District Court, D. Colorado 1992, 790 F. Supp. 1531)“…s foreclosure), and actions for marriage dissolution. See Colo.Rev. Stat. § 14-10-107(4)(a). . I note that the short, s…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 14-2-104FormalitiesIn force
(1) A marriage is valid in this state if it is licensed, solemnized, and registered as provided in this part 1. (2) and (3) (Deleted by amendment, L. 2025).
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at olls.info
Cited in 4 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2014
Leading cases:
- No. (Colorado Attorney General Reports 1975)“…valid in Colorado? My conclusion is "no." ANALYSIS C.R.S. 14-2-104 (1973) provides, "A marriage between a…”
- Windsor v. United States (Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 2012, 699 F.3d 169)“…208; Cal. Const. Art. I, § 7.5; Colo. Const. Art. 2, § 31; Colo.Rev. Stat. § 14-2-104; 13 Del.Code Ann. § 101; *204 Fla. Con…”
- Adams v. Howerton (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 1982, 673 F.2d 1036)“…ge only as a relationship between a male and a female. See Colo.Rev.Stat. § 14-2-104 (1973) ("Formalities. Marriage between…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 14-2-109.5Common law marriage - age restrictionsIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) A common law marriage entered into on or after September 1, 2006, shall not be recognized as a valid marriage in this state unless, at the time the common law marriage is entered into: (a) Each party is eighteen years of age or older; and (b) The marriage is not prohibited, as provided in section 14-2-110. (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 14-2-112, a common law marriage contracted within or outside this state on or after September 1, 2006, that does not satisfy the requirements specified in subsection (1) of this section shall not be recognized as valid in this state.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at olls.info
Also relied on in: Common Law Marriage in Maryland: Is It Recognized? (2026)
§ 14-2-110Prohibited marriagesIn force
(1) The following marriages are prohibited: (a) A marriage entered into prior to the dissolution of an earlier marriage of one of the parties, except a currently valid marriage between the parties; (a.5) A marriage entered into prior to the dissolution of an earlier civil union of one of the parties, except a currently valid civil union between the same two parties; (b) A marriage between an ancestor and a descendant or between a brother and a sister, whether the relationship is by the half or the whole blood; (c) A marriage between an uncle and a niece or between an aunt and a nephew, whether the relationship is by the half or the whole blood, except as to marriages permitted by the established customs of aboriginal cultures. (2) Repealed. (2) For the legislative declaration in SB 16-150, see section 1 of chapter 263, Session Laws of Colorado 2016. For the legislative declaration in SB 18-095, see section 1 of chapter 96, Session Laws of Colorado 2018.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at olls.info
Colorado Revised Statutes, Title 18: Criminal Code
§ 18-6-201BigamyIn force
(1) Any married person who, while still married, marries, enters into a civil union, or cohabits in this state with another person commits bigamy, unless as an affirmative defense it appears that at the time of the cohabitation, subsequent marriage, or subsequent civil union: (a) The accused reasonably believed the prior spouse to be dead; or (b) The prior spouse had been continually absent for a period of five years during which time the accused did not know the prior spouse to be alive; or (c) The accused reasonably believed that he or she was legally eligible to remarry or legally eligible to enter into a civil union.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at olls.info
Cited in 2 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 1985
Leading cases:
- Potter v. Murray City (Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 1985, 760 F.2d 1065)“…th Cir. March 26, 1985). . In our Circuit, see, e.g., Colo.Rev.Stat. § 18-6-201 (1978); Kan.Stat.Ann. § 21-3601 (1981);…”
- 37 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1652, 37 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 35,222 Royston E. Potter v. Murray City, a Municipal Corporation, Calvin G. Gillen, Individually and in His Capacity as Chief of Police of Murray City, Murray City Civil Service Commission, the Honorable Scott M. Metheson, as Governor of the State of Utah, the Honorable David L. Wilkinson, as Attorney General of the State of Utah, the State of Utah and the United States of America (Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 1985, 760 F.2d 1065)“…10 In our Circuit, see, e.g., Colo.Rev.Stat. Sec. 18-6-201 (1978); Kan.Stat.Ann. Sec. 21-3601 (19…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- C.R.S. 14-2-109.5 - Common law marriage - age restrictions(colorado.public.law)
- C.R.S. 14-2-104 - Validity of marriage(colorado.public.law)
- C.R.S. 14-2-110 - Prohibited marriages(colorado.public.law)
- C.R.S. 14-10-106 - Dissolution of marriage - legal separation(colorado.public.law)
- C.R.S. 14-10-107 - Petition in dissolution proceeding(colorado.public.law)
- C.R.S. 18-6-201 - Bigamy(colorado.public.law)
- Colorado Supreme Court, In re Marriage of Hogsett & Neale, 2021 CO 1 (Jan. 11, 2021)(courtlistener.com)