In these consolidated appeals, the claimants sought VA death benefits as surviving spouses based on asserted common-law marriages under Alabama law. In Burden’s case, the Board found insufficient evidence to prove a common-law marriage before the ceremonial marriage and therefore before the one-year marriage requirement for DIC. In Coleman’s case, the Board similarly found that the record did not establish a valid common-law marriage after divorce. Both claimants argued that VA should have applied the federal benefit-of-the-doubt rule rather than Alabama’s clear-and-convincing proof standard.

The Federal Circuit rejected that argument. The court held that 38 U.S.C. § 103(c) unambiguously directs VA to determine marriage validity under the law of the place where the parties resided, and that this includes the state’s evidentiary burden for proving a marriage. The court reasoned that Congress used different language in § 103(a), which expressly authorizes VA to determine when evidence is satisfactory for a deemed-valid marriage, while § 103(c) contains no similar delegation. The court also explained that the benefit-of-the-doubt rule in § 5107(b) does not displace a specific statutory directive requiring a different state-law standard. The judgments were affirmed.

For purposes of 38 U.S.C. § 103(c), the validity of a marriage is determined under the law of the parties’ state of residence, including that state’s evidentiary burden for proving a common-law marriage; § 5107(b) does not replace that specific state-law standard.

Surviving-spouse claimants relying on common-law marriage must prove marriage validity under the applicable state standard, not merely create equipoise under the VA benefit-of-the-doubt rule.

This is a major Federal Circuit decision on surviving-spouse status and common-law marriage. It clarifies that VA must honor state domestic-relations law as written, including heightened proof requirements, and that federal pro-claimant principles do not erase a state’s substantive marriage-validity rules.

Applying the federal benefit-of-the-doubt standard instead of the governing state’s proof burden when deciding whether a claimed common-law marriage is valid.

A claimant in a state that recognizes common-law marriage submits lay statements and circumstantial evidence of cohabitation. If the state requires clear and convincing evidence, VA must apply that standard in deciding whether the marriage existed before awarding DIC.

Use this case when arguing that marriage validity for DIC or similar death benefits turns on state domestic-relations law, including proof standards. It is especially useful to defeat arguments that the benefit-of-the-doubt rule can substitute for state-law requirements.

38 U.S.C. § 103(c), 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b), 38 U.S.C. § 103(a)