Daniel v. Daniel

Summary

The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Raylyn Daniel’s petition to establish an unsolemnized marriage with Seth Daniel following their 2015 divorce. The court held that mutual consent is required to establish an unsolemnized marriage and concluded that Raylyn failed to prove Seth’s consent in light of his repeated refusals to remarry and the parties’ written agreements disclaiming a marital relationship.

Holdings

1. Mutual consent is a required element of an unsolemnized marriage under Utah law, notwithstanding that consent is not separately enumerated in Utah Code section 81-2-408.
2. Raylyn failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Seth consented to be married or to assume the rights and responsibilities of a legally recognized marital relationship.
3. Any assumed error in excluding or limiting evidence about January 2021 emails and child-support payments was not prejudicial and did not warrant reversal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether mutual consent is a required element of an unsolemnized marriage under Utah Code section 81-2-408 even though the statute does not expressly list consent as a separate enumerated element.
2. Whether the district court clearly erred or abused its discretion in finding that Raylyn failed to prove Seth's mutual consent based on his repeated refusals to remarry and the parties' written agreements disclaiming marriage.
3. Whether the district court committed reversible error in excluding or limiting evidence concerning emails about an unsolemnized marriage and Seth's failure to pay child support.

Disposition

affirmed