District of Columbia
Common Law Marriage in the District of Columbia: Is It Recognized? (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 18, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 7, 2026. · 3 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

The District of Columbia recognizes common law marriage. A couple can enter a valid marriage in DC without a license or ceremony, provided they make a present-tense mutual agreement to be spouses and then cohabit as a married couple. DC courts have applied this rule for nearly a century, most recently reaffirmed in East v. East, 536 A.2d 1103 (D.C. 1988). There is no minimum number of years the couple must live together, and the popular seven-year rule is a myth.
Information last verified on June 2, 2026.
For context on how other states handle this topic, see Common law marriage by state.
Does the District of Columbia recognize common law marriage?
Yes. The District of Columbia has recognized common law marriage since at least 1931, when the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit decided Hoage v. Murch Brothers Construction Co. The rule was reaffirmed and clarified by the DC Court of Appeals in East v. East, 536 A.2d 1103 (D.C. 1988), which remains the controlling statement of DC common law marriage doctrine.
Under DC law, a couple can enter a valid marriage without obtaining a license from the DC Marriage Bureau and without any ceremony. The marriage arises from the parties' own mutual agreement, provided that agreement meets the legal requirements. Once formed, a DC common law marriage carries the same legal weight as any licensed marriage: it creates spousal rights to inheritance, property division on divorce, spousal privilege in legal proceedings, and all other benefits and obligations that flow from marriage under DC law.
DC is in a minority of American jurisdictions that still allow new common law marriages to form. Most states have abolished or never recognized common law marriage formation, though all states recognize a common law marriage that was validly formed elsewhere.
The two requirements for a DC common law marriage
DC common law marriage doctrine rests on two elements, both of which must be satisfied:
1. A present-tense mutual agreement to be spouses
The couple must make a mutual agreement, in words of present tense, that they are taking each other as spouses right now. The legal shorthand is "words of present tense" or "in praesenti" language. Each party must express, through words or conduct that functions as words, that the marriage exists in the present moment.
A future promise does not satisfy this element. Saying "I will marry you" or "let's get married someday" is a betrothal, not a marriage agreement. The courts in East v. East emphasized that the agreement must reflect an immediate, mutual declaration of spousal status, not an intent to marry at some later time.
The agreement does not need to be written down or made in a formal setting. It can be oral. However, because there is no written marriage certificate, the agreement must later be proved by a preponderance of the evidence, so contemporaneous documentation matters.
2. Cohabitation as spouses following the agreement
After the present-tense agreement is made, the couple must cohabit, meaning they must live together and conduct themselves as a married couple. Cohabitation is not merely sharing a residence; it encompasses the mutual assumption of the rights and responsibilities that ordinarily characterize a married life together.
These two elements are the core requirements. Holding out publicly as married (discussed below) is relevant evidence that supports proving both elements, but it functions as evidence rather than as a third independent requirement.
Holding out as married: evidence, not an independent element
In many states that recognize common law marriage, "holding out" publicly as married is treated as a separate third element alongside agreement and cohabitation. In DC, the courts use holding-out evidence primarily to prove the first two elements rather than as an independent requirement.

Holding-out evidence includes:
- Referring to each other as husband, wife, or spouse in everyday conversation.
- Filing joint federal or DC income tax returns as married.
- Listing the partner as spouse on employer benefit enrollment forms, insurance policies, or pension beneficiary designations.
- Signing leases, mortgage applications, or bank account documents as a married couple.
- Introducing each other as spouses to family, friends, neighbors, and coworkers.
- Wearing wedding rings or otherwise presenting to the community as a married couple.
- Social media profiles or public announcements describing the relationship as a marriage.
This evidence is important for two reasons. It corroborates the existence of the present-tense agreement, showing that the parties understood themselves to have married. And it supports the cohabitation element by demonstrating that the parties lived as spouses, not merely as roommates or romantic partners.
Because a common law marriage leaves no documentary trail at its formation, holding-out evidence often becomes the most important category of proof in a dispute.
The standard of proof: preponderance of the evidence
A DC common law marriage is generally established by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning the factfinder must find it more likely than not that the marriage exists. The DC Court of Appeals has expressly held that common law marriage claims are not held to a higher burden than any other civil case (East v. East, 536 A.2d 1103, 1105 (D.C. 1988); Bansda v. Wheeler, 995 A.2d 189, 198 (D.C. 2010)). The one recognized exception is narrow: when a common law marriage allegedly preceded a later ceremonial marriage, the party asserting the earlier marriage must prove it by clear and convincing evidence, because doing so also means overcoming the strong legal presumption that the most recent marriage is valid.
This elevated standard reflects the importance DC courts place on certainty in marital status, particularly in disputes over inheritance, property division, or spousal benefits where large interests are at stake.
The practical implication is that a person claiming a DC common law marriage needs more than a partner's word or vague recollections. Courts look for objective documentary evidence: tax returns, insurance records, benefit designations, lease agreements, and third-party testimony from people who interacted with the couple as a married unit over time.
How a DC common law marriage is proved in legal proceedings
When the existence of a common law marriage is disputed (most often in inheritance or divorce proceedings), the party asserting the marriage bears the burden of proof. Useful evidence includes:
- Joint federal and DC income tax returns filed as married filing jointly or separately.
- Employer records showing the partner enrolled as a legal spouse for health insurance or retirement benefits.
- Lease agreements, mortgage documents, or bank accounts held jointly.
- Wills or estate planning documents naming the partner as spouse.
- Affidavits from family members, coworkers, or friends attesting that they knew the couple to be married.
- Correspondence or communications in which each party refers to the other as husband, wife, or spouse.
- Birth records for any children listing both parties as parents.
- Any oral or written statement in which one or both parties declared themselves to be married to each other.
No single item is decisive. Courts look at the totality of the circumstances. A couple with decades of joint tax returns, employer benefit enrollments as spouses, and consistent public identification as a married couple has a strong case. A couple with only informal statements and a shared address faces a much harder evidentiary challenge in meeting even the preponderance standard.
No minimum cohabitation period: debunking the 7-year myth
A persistent myth holds that a couple must live together for seven years to be common law married. This rule has never existed in the District of Columbia or in any US state. DC common law marriage doctrine, as articulated in East v. East and related cases, sets no minimum cohabitation period. The law asks whether the couple made a present-tense mutual agreement and then cohabited as spouses. It does not ask how many years they cohabited.

Conversely, a couple that has lived together for thirty years without ever making a present-tense mutual agreement to be spouses is not common law married in DC, no matter how long the cohabitation lasted.
The seven-year figure appears to derive from a misunderstanding of historical canon law concepts and has never been codified in any American jurisdiction.
How a DC common law marriage ends
Once a common law marriage exists in DC, it has exactly the same legal status as a licensed ceremonial marriage. It therefore ends in the same two ways: a formal court-ordered divorce, or the death of one spouse.
There is no such thing as a common law divorce. The parties cannot dissolve the marriage by mutual agreement, by separating, by moving apart, or by simply deciding the relationship is over. Without a DC Superior Court divorce decree, both parties remain legally married regardless of how long they have lived separately.
Any subsequent attempt to marry another person while the first marriage remains legally intact would produce a void marriage, since DC, like all US jurisdictions, does not permit bigamy.
Divorce of a DC common law marriage in DC Superior Court follows the same procedural rules as any other DC divorce, including equitable distribution of marital property and consideration of spousal support under DC domestic relations law.
Out-of-state common law marriages recognized in DC
The District of Columbia also recognizes valid common law marriages formed in other jurisdictions. Under comity principles, if a couple forms a valid common law marriage in a state that permits it (such as Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Rhode Island, or Texas) and then moves to DC, DC treats that marriage as fully valid. The out-of-state marriage must have been valid under the law of the jurisdiction where it was formed.
This rule works in reverse as well: a DC common law marriage that is validly formed here will generally be recognized in other states, including states that do not permit new common law marriages within their own borders, as long as the DC marriage satisfied DC's requirements at the time it was formed.
Disclaimer: This page provides general legal information about DC common law marriage law and is not legal advice. Laws can change and individual circumstances vary significantly. Common law marriage disputes often turn on detailed facts and require skilled legal analysis. Consult a licensed DC family law attorney for advice about your specific situation.

Related articles
Last updated: June 2, 2026.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does DC recognize common law marriage?
Yes. The District of Columbia recognizes common law marriage. A valid DC common law marriage requires a present-tense mutual agreement by both parties to be spouses, followed by cohabitation as a married couple. The leading cases are Hoage v. Murch Brothers Construction Co. (1931) and East v. East, 536 A.2d 1103 (D.C. 1988).
What are the requirements for a common law marriage in DC?
Two requirements: (1) a present-tense mutual agreement by both parties to be spouses right now (not a promise to marry in the future), and (2) cohabitation as spouses following that agreement. Evidence of holding out publicly as married (joint taxes, benefit designations, referring to each other as spouse) supports both elements. The claim is generally proved by a preponderance of the evidence; a heightened clear-and-convincing standard applies only if the common law marriage allegedly preceded a later, competing ceremonial marriage.
How long do you have to live together to be common law married in DC?
There is no minimum cohabitation period under DC law. The seven-year rule is a myth that does not exist in DC or in any other US state. What matters is whether the couple made a present-tense mutual agreement to be spouses and then cohabited as a married couple, not how many years they lived together.
What is the difference between a present-tense agreement and a future promise?
A present-tense agreement means each party says, in effect, 'I take you as my spouse now.' A future promise means something like 'I will marry you someday' or 'let's get married.' Only the present-tense agreement creates a common law marriage. A future promise, even a sincere one, is a betrothal, not a marriage.
How is a DC common law marriage proved in court?
The party claiming the marriage must generally prove it by a preponderance of the evidence (a heightened clear-and-convincing standard applies only if the marriage allegedly preceded a later, competing ceremonial marriage). Useful evidence includes joint income tax returns filed as married, employer benefit enrollment records listing the partner as spouse, lease or mortgage documents held jointly, affidavits from people who knew the couple as married, and any statements by either party identifying the other as a spouse.
How does a common law marriage end in DC?
A DC common law marriage ends only through a formal DC Superior Court divorce decree or the death of one spouse. There is no common law divorce. Separating, moving apart, or agreeing to end the relationship does not dissolve the marriage. Both parties remain legally married until a court enters a divorce order.
Will DC recognize a common law marriage formed in another state?
Yes. DC recognizes a common law marriage that was validly formed in another jurisdiction under comity principles. If the couple satisfied the requirements of the state where the marriage was formed (such as Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Rhode Island, or Texas), DC will treat that marriage as valid.
Updates
Corrected the standard of proof for a DC common law marriage: it is generally a preponderance of the evidence, not clear-and-convincing evidence (the heightened standard applies only in the narrow case where the common law marriage allegedly preceded a later ceremonial marriage). Also fixed three dead or mismatched case-law citation links.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
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.
Code of the District of Columbia, Title 16: Particular Actions, Proceedings and Matters. - Chapter 9: Divorce, Annulment, Separation, Support, Etc.
§ 16-904Grounds for divorce, legal separation, and annulment.In forcecited in 4 of our articles
(a) A divorce from the bonds of marriage may be granted upon the assertion by one or both parties that they no longer wish to remain married. (b) A legal separation from bed and board may be granted upon at least one party's assertion that they intend to pursue a separate life without obtaining a divorce. (c) [Repealed]. (d) Marriage contracts may be annulled in the following cases: (1) where such marriage was contracted while either of the parties thereto had a former spouse living, unless the former marriage had been lawfully dissolved; (2) where such marriage was contracted during the insanity of either party (unless there has been voluntary cohabitation after the discovery of the insanity); (3) where such marriage was procured by fraud or coercion; (4) where either party was matrimonially incapacitated at the time of marriage without the knowledge of the other and has continued to be so incapacitated; or (5) where either of the parties had not attained the age of 18, but in such cases only at the suit of the party who had not attained such age.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at github.com
Cited in 5 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2016
Leading cases:
- Rachal v. Rachal (District of Columbia Court of Appeals 1985, 489 A.2d 476)“…irmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. . See D.C.Code § 16-904(a)(2) (1981). . See D.C.Code §…”
- IVANA CEROVIC v. DUSKO J. STOJKOV (District of Columbia Court of Appeals 2016, 134 A.3d 766)“…arriage is proven, it renders invalid a later marriage. See D.C. Code § 16-904 (d)(1) (2012 Repl.) (providing that a m…”
- Nehme v. Immigration & Naturalization Service (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 2001, 252 F.3d 415)“…06 (West 2000); Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 46b-40 (West 2000); D.C. Code Ann. § 16-904 (1998); 750 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/402…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Washington, D.C. Alimony Laws: How Spousal Support Works (2026), Divorce Laws by State (2026): Grounds, Residency, and Property, District of Columbia Divorce Laws (2026): Grounds, Residency, and Process
Code of the District of Columbia, Title 46: Domestic Relations. - Chapter 4: Marriage.
§ 46-401Equal access to marriage.In force
(a) Marriage is the legally recognized union of 2 persons. Any person may enter into a marriage in the District of Columbia with another person, regardless of gender, unless the marriage is expressly prohibited by § 46-401.01 or § 46-403. (b) Where necessary to implement the rights and responsibilities relating to the marital relationship or familial relationships, gender-specific terms shall be construed to be gender neutral for all purposes throughout the law, whether in the context of statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law, or any other source of civil law.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at github.com
Cited in 4 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2021
Leading cases:
- Brian Gill v. Rodney Van Nostrand (District of Columbia Court of Appeals 2019, 206 A.3d 869)“…hics, 999 A.2d 89, 118–119 (D.C. 2010) (en banc); see also D.C. Code § 46-401(a) (2012 Repl.) (providing, effective…”
- JAMES DAVID SPELLMAN v. JOSEPH BOLAND, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF MICHAEL JOSEPH KELLY (District of Columbia Court of Appeals 2016)“…ch time Mr. Kelly lived and was domiciled in Delaware. See D.C. Code § 46-401 (2012…”
- Hirecounsel Dc, LLC v. Connolly (District Court, District of Columbia 2021)“…s without merit based on the pain language of the statute. D.C. Code § 46-401 (“acquisition of the trade secret by i…”
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
- East v. East, 536 A.2d 1103 (D.C. 1988)(courtlistener.com)
- Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, Common Law Marriage(law.cornell.edu)
- DC Courts, Divorce and Separation(dccourts.gov)
- Hoage v. Murch Bros. Construction Co., 60 App. D.C. 218, 50 F.2d 983 (D.C. Cir. 1931) - DC's earliest recognition of common law marriage(courtlistener.com)
- DC Code § 16-904 - Grounds for Absolute Divorce (dccouncil.gov)(code.dccouncil.gov).gov
- DC Code § 46-401 - Marriage in the District of Columbia (dccouncil.gov)(code.dccouncil.gov).gov
- DC Courts, Family Court Operations Division - Divorce (dccourts.gov)(dccourts.gov).gov