Massachusetts
Common Law Marriage in Massachusetts: 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 18, 2026. · 2 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Massachusetts does not allow couples to form a new common law marriage within the state, and Massachusetts courts have said this is not a recent change. The Supreme Judicial Court stated in Collins v. Guggenheim, 417 Mass. 615, 618 (1994), that Massachusetts has never recognized common law marriage, a position the court repeated in Wilcox v. Trautz, 427 Mass. 326, 332 (1998). There is no primary source confirming a July 12, 1977 abolition date or a grandfathering rule for marriages formed in Massachusetts before that date. Massachusetts does recognize a common law marriage validly formed in another state that still permits such marriages.
Information last verified on June 2, 2026.
Does Massachusetts recognize common law marriage?
No. Massachusetts courts describe this as a matter of the Commonwealth never having recognized common law marriage at all, not as an abolition on a specific date. No couple can form a valid common law marriage within Massachusetts. Any Massachusetts relationship, no matter how long it has lasted, how publicly the parties held themselves out as married, or what mutual understanding they believed they had, does not create a legally recognized marriage in Massachusetts without a formal license and ceremony.
There is no confirmed abolition date and no grandfathering provision in Massachusetts law for an informal marriage formed within the state. In Collins v. Guggenheim, 417 Mass. 615, 618 (1994), the Supreme Judicial Court said flatly, "We have never recognized common law marriage." Earlier decisions point the same way without using that phrase. Davis v. Misiano, 373 Mass. 261, 262 (1977), states that "Cohabitation within this Commonwealth, in the absence of a formal solemnization of marriage, does not create the relationship of husband and wife," and it traces that rule to Robbins v. Robbins, 140 Mass. 528, 530 (1886). The rule is therefore far older than the 1977 date the myth attaches to it.
The Supreme Judicial Court returned to the point in Wilcox v. Trautz, 427 Mass. 326, 332-333 (1998), writing that "We have never recognized common law marriage in this Commonwealth . . . nor have we permitted the incidents of the marital relationship to attach to an arrangement of cohabitation without marriage." Wilcox was primarily a case about the enforceability of a written cohabitation agreement between an unmarried couple, and its holding is that such an agreement is enforceable as an ordinary contract. The passage on common law marriage restates settled law rather than announcing a new rule, and the opinion says nothing about a 1977 abolition date. It tracks Collins v. Guggenheim, 417 Mass. 615, 617 (1994), which states that "Cohabitation in Massachusetts does not create the relationship of husband and wife in the absence of a formal solemnization of marriage."
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 207 governs marriage in the Commonwealth. The chapter establishes a comprehensive framework requiring notice of intention (section 20), a certificate issued by the town clerk (section 28), solemnization by an authorized person (section 38), and registration of the ceremony. This statutory scheme provides no pathway for informal marriage formation, consistent with Massachusetts courts' statements that the Commonwealth has never recognized common law marriage.
Is there a grandfathered common law marriage formed within Massachusetts?
No primary source confirms this. Massachusetts case law, including Collins v. Guggenheim, 417 Mass. 615 (1994), and Wilcox v. Trautz, 427 Mass. 326 (1998), describes the Commonwealth as never having recognized in-state common law marriage, without tying that position to any specific date. There is no known Massachusetts statute or published decision establishing a specific abolition date or a grandfathering rule for marriages formed within the state before a cutoff.
Anyone who believes they have an old informal marriage formed within Massachusetts should not rely on July 12, 1977, or any other specific date, as a legal cutoff, since no primary source establishes one. Consult a licensed Massachusetts family law attorney, who can research whether any exception applies to a specific set of facts.
Because Massachusetts case law does not establish any date or mechanism by which an in-state informal relationship became a legal marriage, a party asserting such a claim faces a difficult burden. Courts would look at contemporaneous documents, including tax returns, insurance designations, bank records, property titles, and correspondence, as well as testimony from witnesses, but the underlying legal theory that an in-state common law marriage was ever possible in Massachusetts is not supported by the case law reviewed for this article.
For practical purposes, a claim of a common law marriage formed within Massachusetts is very difficult to sustain given the case law described above. Anyone facing this question in an estate proceeding or survivor-benefit dispute should consult a licensed Massachusetts family law attorney.
Does Massachusetts recognize a common law marriage from another state?
Yes. Massachusetts gives full legal recognition to a common law marriage that was validly formed in a state that still permits such marriages. That recognition rests on the place-of-celebration rule and on comity: a marriage valid where it was created is generally treated as valid elsewhere, and Massachusetts courts look to the law of the state where the relationship was formed. It does not rest on the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution, which reaches the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of other states. A common law marriage involves no court judgment and no state-issued record, and no court has held that the clause compels one state to recognize another state's marriage.
A couple who formed a valid informal marriage in Texas under Texas Family Code section 2.401, or in Colorado under C.R.S. section 14-2-109.5, and who later moved to Massachusetts, retains full marital status in Massachusetts. Massachusetts courts treat the couple as legally married for purposes of divorce, property division, spousal support, intestate inheritance, and all other legal incidents of marriage.
This rule applies to a couple who formed a valid common law marriage in another state, then moved to Massachusetts and later moved away and returned; the marriage remains valid throughout.
To obtain Massachusetts recognition of an out-of-state common law marriage, a party must establish that the marriage satisfied the requirements of the state where it was formed. Massachusetts courts will apply the law of that other state to evaluate whether the marriage was validly created, not Massachusetts law.
How to prove a common law marriage formed in another state
A common law marriage leaves no license or certificate, so the party asserting the marriage must produce other evidence. The categories of evidence that courts consider when evaluating a claimed out-of-state common law marriage in Massachusetts proceedings are similar across jurisdictions.
Evidence courts commonly consider includes:
- Joint federal and state tax returns filed as married filing jointly or married filing separately
- Joint bank accounts, joint mortgage or lease agreements, or jointly titled property
- Insurance policies listing the partner as a spouse or dependent
- Loan applications, employer benefit enrollment forms, or government records identifying the relationship as a marriage
- Testimony from family members, friends, coworkers, neighbors, or clergy who knew the couple as a married pair
- Written correspondence, social media profiles, or documents in which the parties refer to each other as husband, wife, or spouse
- Use of a shared surname
- Affidavits executed by both parties affirming the marriage
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 207, section 47, provides that marriage may be proved by evidence of general repute, cohabitation of the parties as married persons, or any other fact from which it may be inferred. That evidentiary provision applies to proving existing marriages, not to forming new ones.
No single piece of evidence is determinative. Courts weigh the whole picture to determine whether the parties genuinely agreed to be married and represented themselves as married, as required by the law of the state where the marriage was allegedly formed.
The 7-year cohabitation myth
A widespread misconception holds that living together for 7 years automatically creates a common law marriage. This is false in every state in the United States, including states that still allow common law marriage formation, and it is completely inapplicable in Massachusetts.
No state that permits common law marriage sets a minimum number of cohabitation years as a requirement. The relevant elements are the present mutual agreement of the parties to be married, cohabitation in the permitting state, and public representation of the marriage. Duration of cohabitation is relevant only as circumstantial evidence of intent, not as a standalone trigger.
In Massachusetts, no period of cohabitation creates a marriage, according to the Commonwealth's own case law. A couple that has lived together in Massachusetts for 7 years, or 27 years, without a license and ceremony is not legally married in Massachusetts, regardless of any mutual understanding or public representation.
How a common law marriage ends
A valid common law marriage, wherever it was formed, can only be terminated by a formal legal divorce, annulment, or the death of a spouse. There is no such thing as a common law divorce or an informal dissolution of a marriage. Moving apart, ending the relationship, or entering a new partnership does not end a valid marriage.
This rule has significant practical consequences. A person who formed a valid common law marriage in Colorado or Texas, moved to Massachusetts, and then separated without filing for divorce is still legally married under Massachusetts law. If that person later marries another partner in a Massachusetts ceremony, the second marriage is void because the prior valid marriage remains in force. If you formed a common law marriage in another state and separated without a divorce, get a free case evaluation from a Massachusetts family lawyer on filing the divorce before any new marriage (attorney advertising).
Massachusetts courts dissolve common law marriages formed in other states through the same divorce proceedings and under the same legal standards that govern the dissolution of any Massachusetts marriage. The court applies Massachusetts divorce law, including the alimony provisions under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 208 and the child support guidelines, to the dissolution.
For context on what that process may involve financially, see Massachusetts alimony laws and Massachusetts child support laws.
For a state-by-state comparison of which states recognize common law marriage, see Common law marriage by state.
Disclaimer: This page provides general legal information about common law marriage recognition in Massachusetts and is not legal advice. Marriage and family law determinations are fact-specific and depend on individual circumstances, including the law of the state where any claimed common law marriage was formed. This information was verified as of June 2, 2026. Consult a licensed Massachusetts family law attorney for advice about your specific situation.
Last updated: June 2, 2026.
More Massachusetts Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Massachusetts have common law marriage?
Massachusetts courts, including the Supreme Judicial Court in Collins v. Guggenheim, 417 Mass. 615, 618 (1994), and Wilcox v. Trautz, 427 Mass. 326, 332-333 (1998), have stated that Massachusetts has never recognized common law marriage. No primary source confirms a July 12, 1977 abolition date or a grandfathering rule for marriages formed within the state.
What is the Wilcox v. Trautz case about?
Wilcox v. Trautz, 427 Mass. 326 (1998), is best known as a Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision holding that written cohabitation agreements between unmarried couples are enforceable as ordinary contracts. Along the way, at 332-333, the court restated that it has never recognized common law marriage in the Commonwealth and has not permitted the incidents of the marital relationship to attach to an arrangement of cohabitation without marriage. That passage restates existing law rather than announcing a new rule, and the opinion sets no abolition date.
Will Massachusetts recognize my common law marriage from another state?
Yes. Massachusetts recognizes a common law marriage validly formed in a state that permits it, such as Colorado, Texas, Iowa, or Rhode Island, under comity and the place-of-celebration rule rather than the Full Faith and Credit Clause. You must show the marriage satisfied the requirements of the state where it was formed.
Does living together for 7 years create a common law marriage in Massachusetts?
No. The 7-year rule is a myth with no basis in any state law. Massachusetts courts have said the Commonwealth has never recognized common law marriage, so no cohabitation period creates a marriage in Massachusetts. Even in states that still allow common law marriage, no minimum number of years is required.
I had a relationship in Massachusetts that started in the 1970s. Could it be a valid common law marriage?
Massachusetts case law, including Collins v. Guggenheim, 417 Mass. 615 (1994), and Wilcox v. Trautz, 427 Mass. 326 (1998), states that Massachusetts has never recognized common law marriage formed within the state, at any point. The rule that cohabitation without a formal solemnization creates no marriage traces at least to Robbins v. Robbins, 140 Mass. 528, 530 (1886), so it was already long settled by the 1970s. There is no confirmed date before which such a relationship would have been valid. Consult a licensed Massachusetts family law attorney to evaluate your specific facts, including whether the relationship might instead have involved a valid marriage formed in another state.
Do I need a divorce to end a common law marriage?
Yes, if the common law marriage was validly formed in another state that permits common law marriage. A legal marriage, whether ceremonial or common law, can only be dissolved by formal divorce, annulment, or death. Informally separating does not end the marriage, and attempting to remarry without a divorce can render the second marriage void.
What legal rights does a common law spouse have in Massachusetts?
If a common law marriage is recognized in Massachusetts as a valid out-of-state common law marriage, the spouse has the same rights as any other legally married spouse in Massachusetts. These include rights in divorce proceedings (property division, alimony), intestate inheritance rights, spousal elective share, and the right to bring wrongful death or loss of consortium claims.
Updates
Corrected the case citations on this page: the Collins v. Guggenheim pincite for the statement that Massachusetts has never recognized common law marriage now reads 618 rather than 617, Wilcox v. Trautz is described as reaffirming that rule rather than holding it, quotations from Collins and Davis v. Misiano now match the opinions word for word, and out-of-state recognition is now explained by comity and the place-of-celebration rule instead of the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
Rewrote the meta description, which incorrectly stated that Massachusetts abolished common law marriage in 1977 and that pre-1977 in-state unions remain valid, to match the article's own sourced position: Massachusetts courts say the Commonwealth has never recognized common law marriage formed in-state, and no primary source confirms a 1977 abolition date. Also removed a miscited case, Robbins v. Robbins (1886), which is an adultery/divorce case with no bearing on common law marriage, from four places on the page (intro, two body sections, and the FAQ); the page's conclusion remains fully supported by Collins v. Guggenheim (1994) and Wilcox v. Trautz (1998), both independently verified to hold that Massachusetts has never recognized common law marriage.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Removed the fabricated July 12, 1977 common-law-marriage abolition date and grandfathering narrative. Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court case law (Collins v. Guggenheim, 1994; Wilcox v. Trautz, 1998, tracing back to Robbins v. Robbins, 1886) states the Commonwealth has never recognized common law marriage; Wilcox v. Trautz is actually about the enforceability of cohabitation contracts and does not mention 1977.
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.
Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 207
§ 47Evidence of marriage; admissions; repute; cohabitationIn force
Section 47. Marriage may be proved by evidence of an admission thereof by an adverse party, by evidence of general repute or of cohabitation of the parties as married persons, or of any other fact from which it may be inferred.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at malegislature.gov
Cited in 4 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 1959
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Finer v. Steuer (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1926, 255 Mass. 611)“…ersons, or of any other fact from which it may be inferred. G. L. c. 207, § 47. A marriage may be proved by oral evide…”
- Edwards v. Cockburn (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1928, 264 Mass. 112)“…finding that there was no common law marriage must stand. G. L. c. 207, § 47, provides that “Marriage may be proved…”
- Stamper v. Stanwood (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1959, 339 Mass. 549)“…ars until his death in 1899, and bore him ten children. See G. L. c. 207, § 47; Banister v. Hender…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 20Intention of marriage; written notice; oathIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
Section 20. The clerk shall require written notice of intention of marriage, on forms furnished by the state registrar of vital records and statistics, containing such information as is required by law and also a statement of absence of any legal impediment to the marriage, to be given before such town clerk under oath by both of the parties to the intended marriage; provided, that if a registered physician makes affidavit to the satisfaction of the town clerk that a party is unable, by reason of illness, to appear, such notice may be given on behalf of such party, by his or her parent or legal guardian, or, in case there is no parent or legal guardian competent to act, or by the other party. Said forms containing the parties' written notice of intent to marry shall constitute a public record. In addition to such forms, the town clerk shall also require the parties to furnish information required for a separate report to be transmitted to the state registrar, including the social security number and residence address of both parties and such other information as may be required by state or federal law.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at malegislature.gov
Cited in 4 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2010
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Cote-Whitacre v. Department of Public Health (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 2006, 446 Mass. 350)“…diments precluding them from marrying in Massachusetts. See G. L. c. 207, § 20. The sworn notices were then filed by t…”
- Goodridge v. Department of Public Health (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 2003, 440 Mass. 309)“…licenses by city and town clerks and registers. See, e.g., G. L. c. 207, §§ 20, 28A, and 37. The registry is headed by…”
- Cerutti-O'Brien v. Cerutti-O'Brien (Massachusetts Appeals Court 2010, 77 Mass. App. Ct. 166)“…quired to complete prior to being married in Massachusetts. G. L. c. 207, § 20. In that form, the defendant stated tha…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Massachusetts Marriage License Requirements 2026: Fees, 3-Day Wait
§ 28Certificate of intention of marriage; delivery; timeIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
Section 28. On or after the third day from the filing of notice of intention of marriage, except as otherwise provided, but not in any event later than sixty days after such filing, the clerk or registrar shall deliver to the parties a certificate signed by him, specifying the date when notice was filed with him and all facts relative to the marriage which are required by law to be ascertained and recorded, except those relative to the person by whom the marriage is to be solemnized. Such certificate shall be delivered to the minister or magistrate before whom the marriage is to be contracted, before he proceeds to solemnize the same. If such certificate is not sooner used, it shall be returned to the office issuing it within sixty days after the date when notice of intention of marriage was filed.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at malegislature.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2003
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Goodridge v. Department of Public Health (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 2003, 440 Mass. 309)“…the form and returns it (or a copy) to the clerk’s office. G. L. c. 207, §§ 28, 30, 38-40 (this completed form is comm…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 38Solemnization of marriage; situs; persons authorizedIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
Section 38. A marriage may be solemnized in any place within the commonwealth by the following persons who are residents of the commonwealth: a duly ordained minister of the gospel in good and regular standing with his church or denomination, including an ordained deacon in The United Methodist Church or in the Roman Catholic Church; a commissioned cantor or duly ordained rabbi of the Jewish faith; by a justice of the peace if he is also clerk or assistant clerk of a city or town, or a registrar or assistant registrar, or a clerk or assistant clerk of a court or a clerk or assistant clerk of the senate or house of representatives, by a justice of the peace if he has been designated as provided in the following section and has received a certificate of designation and has qualified thereunder; an authorized representative of a Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is in accordance with the usage of their community; a priest or minister of the Buddhist religion; a minister in fellowship with the Unitarian Universalist Association and ordained by a local church; a leader of an Ethical Culture Society which is duly established in the commonwealth and recognized by the American Ethical Union…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at malegislature.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2003
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Goodridge v. Department of Public Health (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 2003, 440 Mass. 309)“…vil marriage be solemnized only by those so authorized. See G. L. c. 207, §§ 38-40. The record-keeping provisions of…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Texas Family Code
§ 2.401PROOF OF INFORMAL MARRIAGEIn forcecited in 24 of our articles
(a) In a judicial, administrative, or other proceeding, the marriage of a man and woman may be proved by evidence that: (1) a declaration of their marriage has been signed as provided by this subchapter; or (2) the man and woman agreed to be married and after the agreement they lived together in this state as husband and wife and there represented to others that they were married. (b) If a proceeding in which a marriage is to be proved as provided by Subsection (a)(2) is not commenced before the second anniversary of the date on which the parties separated and ceased living together, it is rebuttably presumed that the parties did not enter into an agreement to be married. (c) A person under 18 years of age may not: (1) be a party to an informal marriage; or (2) execute a declaration of informal marriage under Section 2.402. (d) A person may not be a party to an informal marriage or execute a declaration of an informal marriage if the person is presently married to a person who is not the other party to the informal marriage or declaration of an informal marriage, as applicable.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-07 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at statutes.capitol.texas.gov
Cited in 98 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Joplin v. Borusheski (2008) applied section 2.401(b): a suit filed over two years after separation raises a rebuttable presumption the parties never agreed to marry, which that proponent did not rebut. In Lan Ngoc Nguyen v. Dinh Duc Nguyen (2011) the 2.401(d) prior-marriage impediment was not proved, and that finding was reversed.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Lan Ngoc Nguyen v. Dinh Duc Nguyen (Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) 2011, 355 S.W.3d 82)✓A husband fought his wife's divorce petition by claiming an earlier Vietnamese marriage was an impediment under Section 2.401(d); the court found the proof of that prior marriage factually insufficient and remanded to decide the statute's three informal-marriage elements.
- Assoun v. Gustafson (Court of Appeals of Texas 2016, 493 S.W.3d 156)✓An ex-husband sued to have his former wife declared informally married to her boyfriend, ending his alimony; applying Section 2.401(a), the court affirmed summary judgment for the couple because their sworn denials of any agreement to marry defeated his circumstantial proof.
- Joplin v. Borusheski (Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) 2008, 244 S.W.3d 607)✓A man filed for divorce in 2005 claiming a common-law marriage, more than two years after the couple stopped living together; the court applied Section 2.401(b)'s rebuttable presumption of no agreement to marry and held his testimony failed to rebut it.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Common Law Marriage by State: Where It's Recognized (2026), Common Law Marriage in Arizona: Is It Recognized? (2026), Common Law Marriage in Delaware: Is It Recognized? (2026)
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- M.G.L. Chapter 207, Marriage(malegislature.gov)
- M.G.L. Chapter 207, section 38(malegislature.gov)
- M.G.L. Chapter 207, section 47(malegislature.gov)
- U.S. Constitution Art. IV sec. 1(law.cornell.edu)
- Texas Family Code section 2.401, Informal marriage. Texas Legislature(statutes.capitol.texas.gov).gov
- Colorado Revised Statutes section 14-2-109.5, Common law marriages. Colorado General Assembly(leg.colorado.gov).gov
- Collins v. Guggenheim, 417 Mass. 615, 617-618 (1994) (full opinion text)(static.case.law)
- Wilcox v. Trautz, 427 Mass. 326, 332-333 (1998) (full opinion text)(static.case.law)
- Davis v. Misiano, 373 Mass. 261, 262 (1977) (full opinion text)(static.case.law)
Paid attorney referral. RecordingLaw may receive compensation when you use an attorney-help link. RecordingLaw is not a law firm. Submitting a request does not guarantee that an attorney will accept your case and does not create an attorney-client relationship.