Minnesota
Common Law Marriage in Minnesota: 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. · 1 primary source cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Minnesota abolished the formation of new common law marriages effective April 26, 1941, under . Any marriage in Minnesota formed after that date without a license, two witnesses, and solemnization is null and void under the plain terms of the statute. Common law marriages entered into in Minnesota before April 26, 1941, remain legally valid. Minnesota also recognizes a valid common law marriage formed in another state.
Information last verified on June 2, 2026.
Does Minnesota recognize common law marriage?
Minnesota no longer allows couples to form a common law marriage within the state. provides that a lawful civil marriage may be contracted only when a license has been obtained as provided by law and when the marriage is contracted in the presence of two witnesses and solemnized by one authorized, or whom one or both parties in good faith believe to be authorized, to do so. The same statute declares that marriages subsequent to April 26, 1941, not so contracted shall be null and void.
The language is unambiguous. A couple that begins cohabiting in Minnesota after April 26, 1941, reaches an informal mutual agreement to be married, and presents themselves to others as a married couple has not formed a legally valid marriage under Minnesota law. No amount of cohabitation, no joint financial arrangements, and no consistent use of a shared last name creates a marriage in Minnesota without satisfying all three statutory requirements: a license, two witnesses, and authorized solemnization.
Before April 26, 1941, Minnesota recognized common law marriages under the general common law rule, which required mutual present consent to be married, cohabitation, and public holding out as a married couple. The 1941 effective date represents the Minnesota Legislature's decision to require formal procedures going forward while protecting the validity of marriages already formed under the prior rule.
Why Minnesota abolished common law marriage in 1941
Minnesota was among the earlier states to eliminate informal marriage formation by statute. The legislative rationale for requiring a license, two witnesses, and solemnization reflects several policy goals that courts and scholars have recognized: formal procedures create a definitive public record of marital status, ensure that both parties understand the legal consequences of the relationship before it is established, reduce costly and uncertain litigation over whether a marriage was ever formed, and facilitate administration of estates, benefits programs, and tax filings.

The 1941 cutoff also reflects the social context of that period. Minnesota courts of the era had addressed contested common law marriage claims with some regularity, and the legislature chose a clean statutory rule over continued case-by-case adjudication. The null-and-void language of section 517.01 leaves no room for equitable exceptions or judicial creation of informal marriage status for post-1941 relationships.
Since 1941, the Minnesota Legislature has amended section 517.01 to reflect evolving marriage law, including the removal of the opposite-sex requirement following the United States Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), but the core requirement of license, witnesses, and solemnization, and the null-and-void consequence for noncompliance, have remained unchanged.
Pre-1941 common law marriages: what remains valid
A common law marriage formed in Minnesota before April 26, 1941, remains fully valid today. The 1941 statute operated prospectively. It did not invalidate marriages that had already been established under the prior common law rule.
To show that a valid pre-1941 Minnesota common law marriage existed, a party must establish that the elements of a common law marriage under Minnesota's pre-1941 rule were satisfied: mutual present agreement to be married, cohabitation in Minnesota as husband and wife, and public holding out of the relationship as a marriage. All of those elements must have been in place before April 26, 1941.
Given that any pre-1941 relationship is now more than 85 years in the past, evidence of such a marriage is almost exclusively historical: deeds, titles, and property records identifying the couple as husband and wife; federal census records; old joint tax filings; death certificates, obituaries, or church records; and affidavits or estate records from the era. Courts examine the totality of the historical evidence.
A pre-1941 common law marriage dissolves only upon formal divorce, annulment, or the death of a spouse, the same as any other valid marriage.
Does Minnesota recognize a common law marriage from another state?
Yes. Minnesota gives full legal effect to a common law marriage that was validly formed in a state that permits such marriages. Two legal doctrines support this recognition. The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution requires each state to give credit to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of other states. The common law principle of comity independently directs courts to recognize legal relationships that were validly created under the law of another jurisdiction.
As of 2026, the states that still permit formation of new common law marriages include Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Oklahoma (contested), Rhode Island, Texas (called "informal marriage" under Tex. Fam. Code section 2.401), and Utah (which requires a court or administrative order to establish the marriage). The District of Columbia also recognizes common law marriage formation. A couple who formed a valid common law marriage in any of those jurisdictions and then moved to Minnesota retains that marital status in Minnesota.
For Minnesota purposes, a couple with a valid out-of-state common law marriage is treated as legally married. Minnesota courts and agencies apply the same rights and obligations that apply to any ceremonially solemnized marriage: divorce jurisdiction, property division under Minnesota's marital property principles, spousal maintenance eligibility under , intestate inheritance rights under , and all other incidents of the marital relationship.
To invoke Minnesota recognition of an out-of-state common law marriage, the party asserting the marriage must show that the marriage met all the requirements of the state where it was formed. For example, a couple asserting a Colorado common law marriage must establish that they met the requirements of Colo. Rev. Stat. section 14-2-109.5, including mutual agreement, cohabitation in Colorado, and public representation of the marriage.
How to prove a common law marriage formed in another state
Because a common law marriage leaves no license or official certificate, the burden of proving its existence falls on the party asserting it. The specific elements and the standard of proof are determined by the law of the state where the marriage was formed. Minnesota courts evaluating an out-of-state common law marriage will look to the same types of evidence that the forming state's courts would consider.

Evidence commonly considered includes:
- Joint federal or state income tax returns filed as "married filing jointly" or "married filing separately"
- Joint bank accounts, joint mortgage or lease agreements, or jointly titled property
- Life insurance policies or retirement account beneficiary designations listing the other party as a spouse
- Loan applications, government forms, or employer benefit documents identifying the relationship as a marriage
- Testimony from family members, friends, neighbors, coworkers, or members of the couple's religious community who regarded them as married
- Written correspondence, social media records, cards, or other documents in which the parties referred to each other as husband, wife, or spouse
- Use of a shared last name or joint use of both last names
- Affidavits signed by both parties or by knowledgeable third parties acknowledging the marriage
No single item is conclusive. Courts assess the totality of the circumstances against the requirements of the state where the marriage was allegedly formed.
The 7-year myth
A persistent belief holds that living together for 7 years automatically creates a common law marriage. This is false in every state in the United States, including Minnesota. No state, including the states that still permit common law marriage formation, sets a minimum number of years of cohabitation as a requirement or automatic trigger.
The states that allow common law marriage formation focus on intent and conduct: a present mutual agreement to be married, cohabitation in the permitting state, and public representation of the marital relationship. Duration of cohabitation may be relevant as circumstantial evidence of intent, but no specific number of years creates a marriage by itself.
In Minnesota, this myth is especially easy to dispel because the state has not allowed common law marriage formation at all for any relationship beginning after April 26, 1941. A couple that has cohabited in Minnesota for 7, 17, or 47 years without a license, witnesses, and solemnization has not formed a valid marriage under Minnesota law.
How a common law marriage ends in Minnesota
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. Minnesota law provides no mechanism for informally dissolving a marriage, and there is no such thing as a "common law divorce."

Simply separating, dividing shared property, or ceasing to live together does not end a legal marriage. A Minnesota resident who holds a valid out-of-state common law marriage and later "separates" without filing for divorce remains legally married under Minnesota law. Attempting to remarry in Minnesota without having first obtained a divorce would create a void or voidable second marriage.
Divorce proceedings in Minnesota to dissolve a valid out-of-state common law marriage proceed under Minnesota law in the same manner as any other dissolution action. The court applies Minnesota's marital property and dissolution rules, including the spousal maintenance factors under , and the same residency and jurisdictional requirements that apply to any Minnesota divorce.
For more on the financial consequences of ending a Minnesota marriage, see Minnesota alimony laws and Minnesota 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 in Minnesota and is not legal advice. Marriage and family law determinations are fact-specific and depend on the individual circumstances of each case. This information was verified as of June 2, 2026. Consult a licensed Minnesota family law attorney for advice about your specific situation.
Last updated: June 2, 2026.
More Minnesota Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Minnesota recognize common law marriage?
Minnesota no longer allows common law marriages to be formed within the state. Minn. Stat. section 517.01 abolished common law marriage formation effective April 26, 1941, declaring that marriages formed after that date without a license, two witnesses, and authorized solemnization 'shall be null and void.' Common law marriages validly formed in Minnesota before April 26, 1941, remain fully recognized, and Minnesota recognizes valid common law marriages formed in other states.
What is the cutoff date for common law marriage in Minnesota?
April 26, 1941. Minn. Stat. section 517.01 states that marriages subsequent to April 26, 1941, not contracted in compliance with the statute's requirements shall be null and void. Any common law marriage formed in Minnesota before that date remains valid. No common law marriage can be formed in Minnesota after April 26, 1941.
Is 7 years of living together considered common law marriage in Minnesota?
No. This is a myth. Minnesota has not allowed common law marriage formation for any relationship beginning after April 26, 1941, and no state sets a required number of years of cohabitation as a threshold. Cohabiting in Minnesota for any number of years, without a license, two witnesses, and solemnization, does not create a legal marriage.
Does Minnesota recognize a common law marriage from another state?
Yes. Minnesota recognizes a common law marriage that was validly formed in a state that permits such marriages. Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the principle of comity, a couple who formed a valid common law marriage in Colorado, Texas, Iowa, or another permitting state and later moved to Minnesota retains that marital status in Minnesota.
How do you end a common law marriage in Minnesota?
A valid common law marriage can only be ended by formal divorce, annulment, or the death of a spouse. There is no common law divorce. A Minnesota resident with a valid out-of-state common law marriage must file for divorce in a court with jurisdiction to dissolve the marriage. Simply separating or stopping cohabitation does not end a legal marriage.
Which Minnesota statute governs common law marriage?
Minn. Stat. section 517.01 is the key provision. It requires a license, two witnesses, and authorized solemnization for a valid Minnesota marriage, and states explicitly that marriages subsequent to April 26, 1941, not so contracted shall be null and void. This is the statutory basis for Minnesota's abolition of common law marriage formation.
Can I claim spousal rights in Minnesota based on a long-term relationship?
Not for a relationship formed and maintained entirely within Minnesota after April 26, 1941. Without a marriage license, no marital rights arise under Minnesota law regardless of the length or nature of the relationship. If the relationship included a period of cohabitation in a state that permits common law marriage formation and you met that state's requirements, you may be able to assert that a valid marriage was formed there, subject to proof and a court's determination.
Updates
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.
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 517: CIVIL MARRIAGE
§ 517.01CIVIL MARRIAGE CONTRACTIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
A civil marriage, so far as its validity in law is concerned, is a civil contract between two persons, to which the consent of the parties, capable in law of contracting, is essential. A lawful civil marriage may be contracted only when a license has been obtained as provided by law and when the civil marriage is contracted in the presence of two witnesses and solemnized by one authorized, or whom one or both of the parties in good faith believe to be authorized, so to do. Marriages subsequent to April 26, 1941, not so contracted shall be null and void.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mn.gov
Cited in 16 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
Leading cases:
- Marriage of Cummings v. Cummings (Court of Appeals of Minnesota 1985, 376 N.W.2d 726)“…neered Concrete, 277 N.W.2d 653, 656 (Minn.1979); Minn.Stat. § 517.01 (1984). Consequently, we hold th…”
- Monson v. Rochester Athlectic Club (Court of Appeals of Minnesota 2009, 759 N.W.2d 60)“…cerned, is a civil contract between a man and a woman....” Minn. Stat. § 517.01 (2008). By itself, RAC’s policy does n…”
- Hedlund v. Monumental General Insurance Co. (Court of Appeals of Minnesota 1987, 404 N.W.2d 371)“…specifically abolished by the legislature. See Minn.Stat. § 517.01 (1986). We cannot ignore that pronounce…”
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)
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 518: MARRIAGE DISSOLUTION
§ 518.552MAINTENANCEIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
Subdivision 1. Grounds. In a proceeding for dissolution of marriage or legal separation, or in a proceeding for maintenance following dissolution of the marriage by a court which lacked personal jurisdiction over the absent spouse and which has since acquired jurisdiction, the court may grant a maintenance order for either spouse if it finds that the spouse seeking maintenance: (a) lacks sufficient property, including marital property apportioned to the spouse, to provide for reasonable needs of the spouse considering the standard of living established during the marriage, especially, but not limited to, a period of training or education; (b) is unable to provide adequate self-support, after considering the standard of living established during the marriage and all relevant circumstances; or (c) is the custodian of a child whose condition or circumstances make it appropriate that the custodian not be required to seek employment outside the home. Subd. 2. Amount of maintenance.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mn.gov
Cited in 257 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
Leading cases:
- Marriage of Nardini v. Nardini (Supreme Court of Minnesota 1987, 414 N.W.2d 184)“…not be required to seek employment outside the home. Minn.Stat. § 518.552, subd. 1 (1986). When it has bee…”
- Marriage of Erlandson v. Erlandson (Supreme Court of Minnesota 1982, 318 N.W.2d 36)“…light of the controlling statutory guidelines contained in Minn.Stat. § 518.552 (1980), which contains a detailed enume…”
- Marriage of Taylor v. Taylor (Supreme Court of Minnesota 1983, 329 N.W.2d 795)“…nt for spousal maintenance, we are directed by Minn.Stat. § 518.552, subd. 2 (1980), to consider all releva…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Minnesota Spousal Maintenance (Alimony) Laws: The 2024 Reform (2026)
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 524: UNIFORM PROBATE CODE
§ 524.2-102SHARE OF THE SPOUSEIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
The intestate share of a decedent's surviving spouse is: (1) the entire intestate estate if: (i) no descendant of the decedent survives the decedent; or (ii) all of the decedent's surviving descendants are also descendants of the surviving spouse and there is no other descendant of the surviving spouse who survives the decedent; (2) the first $225,000, plus one-half of any balance of the intestate estate, if all of the decedent's surviving descendants are also descendants of the surviving spouse and the surviving spouse has one or more surviving descendants who are not descendants of the decedent, or if one or more of the decedent's surviving descendants are not descendants of the surviving spouse.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mn.gov
Also relied on in: Minnesota Probate and Intestate Succession: What Happens Without a Will (2026)
Texas Family Code
§ 2.401PROOF OF INFORMAL MARRIAGEIn forcecited in 22 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 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at statutes.capitol.texas.gov
Cited in 98 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 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.
Leading cases:
- 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 in Arizona: Is It Recognized? (2026), Common Law Marriage in Arkansas: 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
- Minn. Stat. section 517.01, Civil Marriage Contract(revisor.mn.gov)
- Minn. Stat. section 518.552, Maintenance; Grounds; Factors(revisor.mn.gov)
- Minn. Stat. section 524.2-102, Intestate Share of Spouse(revisor.mn.gov)
- U.S. Constitution Article IV section 1 Full Faith and Credit Clause(law.cornell.edu)
- Obergefell v. Hodges 576 U.S. 644 (2015)(supremecourt.gov)
- Texas Family Code section 2.401 Informal Marriage(statutes.capitol.texas.gov)
- Colorado Revised Statutes section 14-2-109.5, Common Law Marriages. Colorado General Assembly(leg.colorado.gov).gov