Philadelphia Pa Attorneys Probate

Philadelphia Pa Common Law Marriage

wayne-pa-common-law-marriage-lawyers-1-intro

Philadelphia Pa Common Law Marriage – Abolished

(Note = This paper was presented on October 20, 2003. Since that time, the Pennsylvania Legislature, did in fact, render common law marriage proactively invalid after January 1, 2005, by statute (23 § 1103), stating that “[n]o common-law marriage contracted after January 1, 2005, shall be valid. Nothing in this part shall be deemed or taken to render any common-law marriage otherwise lawful and contracted on or before January 1, 2005, invalid.” (Nov. 23, 2004, P.L.954, No.144, eff. 60 days)).

Philadelphia Pa Common Law Marriage – Intro

Common law marriage in Pennsylvania was recognized by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court over one hundred and thirty (130) years ago. Common law marriage in Pennsylvania was questioned by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court five years ago. Common law marriage in Pennsylvania was abolished by the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court one month ago?

As a caution, however, it is very important to keep in mind that the Commonwealth Court may not be the final word here. Decisions from this court are always subject to being appealed to – and overruled by – the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and decisions from this court control only a limited scope of lower courts and administrative agencies (i.e., workers compensation, unemployment compensation, certain taxation issues, etc.).

Philadelphia Pa Common Law Marriage – The Facts

The petitioner filed a fatal claim petition alleging that he was the common law husband of the decedent who had died during the course of her employment. Because the couple had not been married ceremonially, the facts and circumstances surrounding the nature of their relationship, and the creation – or lack thereof – of their marriage, was the subject of extensive hearings before the Workers Compensation Judge.

Holding that the evidence had proved a valid common law marriage, the Workers Compensation Judge concluded that the petitioner was the common law husband of the decedent. Upon appeal, the Workers Compensation Appeal Board affirmed the Decision of the Judge. Upon further appeal, the Commonwealth Court affirmed the Order of the Appeal Board.

Most notably, and despite a finding of a valid common law marriage in this situation, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court abolished common law marriage in Pennsylvania from this point forward.

In a fascinatingly historical and extensively detailed majority opinion, (both factually and legally), as well as an equally well presented, yet briefer, minority opinion, the Commonwealth Court analyzed and reviewed the scenarios and reasons long ago forgotten that gave rise to a doctrine no longer needed.

Philadelphia Pa Common Law Marriage – The Standard

A common law marriage in Pennsylvania can be proven by two different methods. The first, and primary, test is applied when both of the parties are available to testify. This test requires proof of the exchange of words in the present tense – referred to as “verba in praesenti” – which are to be spoken with the specific purpose of creating the legal relationship of husband and wife. The second, and alternative, test is applied when either of the parties is unavailable to testify. This test then allows the creation of a rebuttable presumption in favor of a common law marriage where there is sufficient proof of cohabitation and reputation of marriage in the community.

As is somewhat evident from these tests, and “[b]ecause claims for the existence of a marriage in the absence of a certified ceremonial marriage present a `fruitful source of perjury and fraud’,” Pennsylvania courts have long viewed such claims [of common law marriage] with hostility.

Philadelphia Pa Common Law Marriage – The History

The origins of common law marriage are as varied as the misconceptions held regarding what actually creates one.

Their beginnings have been attributed to the informal marriages prevalent throughout European culture during the pre-Reformation. From there, they have been traced through England, brought to the American colonies during its settlement by the English immigrants, and then followed across the United States during its development, where they continued their existence out of necessity due to the lack of access to clergy.

Waves to abolish common law marriage began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Some of the many and varied reasons cited in support of its abolishment included the growing emphasis on protecting both the institution of marriage as well as the protection of the increased wealth of the average citizen.

These trends continued throughout the 20th century, rising again amidst the creation of the many new governmental benefit programs in the latter part of the 20th century. New Jersey abolished common law marriage by statute in 1955, and, in support of its abolition, the New Jersey Supreme Court stated that “[i]t was not without reason that our statute and similar statutes in other states have been popularly referred to as `Heart Balm Acts.” The many abuses arising from common law marriages, with their effect on public morality, private property rights and the legitimacy of children, called for correction. Our Legislature dealt with such mischief in this act in sweeping and emphatic language, permitting no exception or evasion. “Despite its judicial acceptance in many states, the doctrine of common law marriage is generally frowned on in this country, even in some of the states that have accepted it.” Accordingly, such a status is the product of an antiquated law and inattention to whether there is a need for change.

Philadelphia Pa Common Law Marriage – The Criticism

However, despite these waves of change, Pennsylvania remains in the minority, being only one of twelve states that still recognizes common law marriage. Because of this, disapproval of the doctrine has grown harsher and more prevalent, with one of the major areas of concern being that of estate law. It has been opined that “[common law marriage] puts in doubt the certainty of the rights of inheritance,” “opens the door to the imposition on estates of suppositious heirs,” and “allow[s] unprincipled claimants to convert illicit relationships into honest marriages, to their advantage, on spurious claims … against the estate of a decedent.”

In 1998, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in the case of Staudenmayer v. Staudenmayer, implied that it was time to abolish common law marriages in this Commonwealth. The Court noted that Pennsylvania courts have long viewed such claims with hostility, warned that the “continued viability [of common law marriages in Pennsylvania] is seriously in question,” but stopped short of abolishing them, concluding that “[w]hile we do not today abolish common law marriages in Pennsylvania, we affirm that claims for this type of marriage are disfavored.”

However, and unlike Staudenmayer, where the issue to abolish common law marriage was not raised on appeal, the issue was properly raised in PNC Bank Corp. In light of this distinction, the PNC Bank Corp. Court noted that “the parties have preserved and fully argued the issue, so it is squarely presented for our consideration, “and stated that “[m]any sound reasons exist to abandon a system that allows the determination of important rights to rest on evidence fraught with inconsistencies, ambiguities, and vagaries. The circumstances creating a need for the doctrine are not present in today’s society.”

The Court cited many reasons in support of its holding to abolish common law marriages in Pennsylvania. These reasons included the fact that “the marital status of parents no longer determines the inheritance rights of their children,” and “the right of a single parent to obtain child support is no longer dependent upon his or her marital status.”

The PNC Bank Corp Court prefaced its holding by stating that “[a]lthough our Supreme Court, while declining to reach the issue [in Staudenmayer], “has raised the overruling axe so high that its falling is just about as certain as the changing of the seasons,” concluded its holding by stating that “[a]ccordingly henceforth, this court will recognize as valid only those Pennsylvania marriages entered into pursuant to the Marriage Law procedures.”

Philadelphia Pa Common Law Marriage – The Conclusion

As its existence in Pennsylvania grows increasingly precarious, it does appear that the door to the church of common law marriage in Pennsylvania may be closing forever. In light of this decision, when our clients say that they are married, do we still take their word for it?

Philadelphia Pa Probate Lawyers Attorneys Guide

The Philadelphia Pa Probate Lawyers Attorneys Guide is the core of this website. It consists of the best, most important articles on this website. Their focus is to provide the best and most complete information on a particular topic, rather than to sell products.

John B. Whalen, Jr., JD., LL.M., is an AV Peer Review Rated Preeminent 5.0 and Avvo Rated 10.0 Superb (obtaining over 95 client reviews and peer endorsements) premier and prestigious Attorney and Counselor at Law. He is located at 8 Longwood Drive Wayne Pa 19087. He serves all surrounding counties, on all 7 days, from 9:00 AM to 10:00 PM, and on evenings, weekends, and holidays. He provides free initial consults all seven days, provides home visits, and provides flat fee structures. He can be reached by email at jw60297@me.com, and by telephone at 1-610-999-2157. He has amassed over 60 prestigious and premier professional awards and over 5000 client reviews and endorsements. Mr. Whalen has achieved the AV Peer Review Rated Preeminent award from Martindale, AV Peer Judicial Preeminent award, the Avvo Rated Superb 10.00 award, the Avvo Rated Top Lawyer award, the Clients’ Choice Award, and the Top One Percent (1%) award. He is the recipient of the Legum Magister Post-Doctorate Degree (LL.M.) in Taxation (from the Villanova University School of Law), a recipient of the American Jurisprudence Award in Wills, Trusts, and Estates (from the Widener University School of Law), and a recipient of the ABA-BNA Law Award for Academic Excellence (from the Widener University School of Law).

Philadelphia Pa HIPAA Powers of Attorneys

Philadelphia Pa HIPAA Powers of Attorneys – Intro

HIPAA is vast.

Congress enacted The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) on August 21, 1996. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) is enormous and complex.

Critical Concerns

One of its critical concerns was protecting the privacy of the average American citizen. Prior to HIPAA’s enactment, medical records had become increasingly accessible as a result of technological advances that contributed widespread information sharing.

HIPAA targeted the potential for fraudulent or improper disclosure and transmission of medical records. In doing so HIPAA has created a challenge for lawyers in Pennsylvania who seek to protect the rights of clients who need to exercise Powers of Attorney for their loved ones within the HIPAA environment.

The Privacy Rules – Before

One of HIPAA’s requirements was the establishment of the Privacy Rules.

Prior to the HIPAA Privacy Rules (which were enacted in their current form on August 14, 2002), there was a confusing mélange of federal and state laws to govern the transmission of, and access to, health information.

Under these pre-existing laws, an individual’s health information could be shared freely between doctors, hospitals, insurers, and third party payers, without either notice to, or authorization from, the individual.

The Privacy Rules – After

Consequently, the HIPAA Privacy Rules set federal minimum standards for the disclosure of an individual’s private health information. The rules attempt to strike a balance between the necessary disclosures of health care information and the privacy interests of those who seek medical care.

Given that the health care marketplace is diverse, the rules are designed to be flexible and comprehensive to cover the variety of uses and disclosures that need to be addressed.

Powers of Attorney

A Pa Power of Attorney is a document that convey legal authority (to the Pa Principal) to act in the name of another person (Pa Agent) for his or her health and welfare.

Historically, health care providers have accepted Powers of Attorney readily, without questioning their validity.

In the post-HIPAA world, however, one can expect a higher level of scrutiny. In fact, the HIPAA Privacy Rules can potentially create a conflict with respect to the traditional language of Powers of Attorney. Thus, to be effective, Powers of Attorney should be drafted to comply with the requirements of the Privacy Rules.

The Privacy Rules protect all individually identifiable health information (defined as Protected Health Information or PHI) of an individual held or transmitted by covered entities (defined as health care providers who transmit any health information in electronic form).

Although the Privacy Rules allow certain uses and disclosures of such information without the consent of the Individual or that Individual’s Personal Representative (defined as a person who has the present authority to make health care decisions for that Individual), the HIPAA Privacy Rules, with few exceptions, proscribe the disclosure of PHI unless the Individual or the Personal Representative authorizes it in writing.

The Granting of Authority

Pa Powers of Attorney are designed to allow an individual the ability to grant authority to another in order to allow the Pa Agent to act on behalf of the Principal.

They can be drafted to be effective now (current powers) or effective in the future occurrence of a specific event (springing powers).

Pennsylvania law (20 Pa.C.S. § 5602(h) and (i)) allows the Principal under the Power of Attorney to grant the Agent the power to authorize “my admission to a medical, nursing, residential or similar facility and to enter into agreements for my care and the power to authorize medical and surgical procedures.”

While Powers of Attorney can be drafted to provide for a wide variety of situations, this article is limited to the impact that the Privacy Rules have on General Durable Powers of Attorney that are presently effective.

If a Power of Attorney grants the Agent the present ability to make health care decisions on behalf of the Principal, the Agent qualifies as the Personal Representative under the HIPAA Privacy Rules.

However, if a Power of Attorney does not grant the Agent the present ability to make health care decisions on behalf of the Principal to the Agent, the Agent is not considered the Personal Representative under the HIPAA Privacy Rules, regardless of the scope of the health and medical authority otherwise granted to the Agent.

In order to be effective under HIPAA, the specific authority granted to the Personal Representative (Agent) under the state defined Power of Attorney rules thus must be consistent with the definition of Personal Representative under the federally defined HIPAA Privacy Rules.

Under the Privacy Rules, a Power of Attorney that is intended to allow the Personal Representative (Pa Agent) the power to access medical records, to authorize information disclosures, and to participate in medical decisions on behalf of the Principal, but not drafted to allow the Personal Representative (Agent) the presently effective power to make health care decisions on behalf of the Principal, may be technically deficient.

Consequently, the Pa Agent may lack the critical necessary powers to act on behalf of the Principal in time of need.

Although some health care professionals may rely upon a Power of Attorney that is not drafted to comply with the Privacy Rules, they do so at their own peril.

The Effective Clause

To address this issue of presently effective powers, I use the following clause in clients’ Durable General Powers of Attorney, as well as in Advance Directives for Health Care:

“to have and utilize the presently effective power and authority to act in accordance with and pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), its attendant Privacy Rules, 45 CFR Part 164, and/or other federal and state legislation, by having the presently effective power and authority to make any and all health care decisions on my behalf; to give informed consent for any and all health care decisions on my behalf; to be deemed to be my Personal Representative; to act in any and all matters as my Personal Representative; to obtain any and all of my Protected Health Information; to consent to the disclosure and use of any and all of my Protected Health Information; and to have the presently effective power and authority to effectuate any and all of the above.”

Please remember that this article is limited to the impact that the HIPAA Privacy Rules have on General Durable Powers of Attorney that are presently effective.

In light of the fact that the determination of capacity is central to the effectiveness of a Pa Power of Attorney (as well as to many other legal documents), the HIPAA Privacy Rules should not create problems for health care purposes if the Pa Agent possesses the presently effective ability to make health care decisions on behalf of a Pa Principal. With a properly drafted Pa Power of Attorney, if the Principal becomes incapacitated, the authority of the Agent is not interrupted.

Conversely, the authority of the Pa Agent will be interrupted if the Pa Power of Attorney is not presently effective and a determination of capacity is required to be made. This situation exists, for example, when an Pa Agent is to act under a Springing Power of Attorney or when a Successor Trustee is to act under a Trust Agreement.

As these scenarios are outside the realm of this article, I would suggest referring to the article, HIPAA-POA: The Effect on Healthcare Power of Attorney by Stephen H. Frishberg, Esquire. This article is contained in the PBI Publication No. 2004-3355, 11th Annual Estate Law Institute.

Stay ahead of the HIPAA Privacy Rules

Estate planners must stay ahead of the basic definitions and tenets of the HIPAA Privacy Rules.

Knowledge of the precise meanings of Protected Health Information, Personal Representative, and other HIPAA terms, and how they impact our practice are fundamental to our role as counselors.

A Power of Attorney is a highly effective document when drafted correctly.

Only with the proper wording in light of HIPAA, the Privacy Rules, and the changing practice of today’s health care profession, will the Power of Attorney remain the powerful tool it is mean to be.