Appellee
Argument:
Issue #1
The appellee first highlights the standards of review for the issue. This is used as a tool to remind the court how overwhelmingly clear the evidence presented by the appellant would have to be that the trial court came to a factually and legally incorrect verdict in order for the ruling to be overturned.
They then move into Ms. Danylyk’s testimony that can be used as direct evidence of an agreement to be married. Danylyk explained that while there was no official date of a conversation to be married, it was something that happened overtime. She also held that while she understands people can live their lives together without being married, that was not her and Officer Hofer’s path. She explained that people often referred to them as “the Hofers.” They back this testimony with rulings and statements from other common law cases. These cases highlight important precedent that included the fact that “a widow’s testimony is direct evidence of an agreement to be married” (Matter of Estate of Geisel) and that “discussions over the course of a year where [both spouses] agreed to be married” was legally sufficient evidence of an agreement (Lewis v. Anderson). Both of these help solidify the evidence in Danylyk’s testimony.
They then move into directly combating the arguments presented by the appellant. The appellant makes the argument that by presenting herself as single in all legal documents and during the funeral proceedings, Danylyk showed that an agreement was not present and that she was not married to Hofer. The appellee refutes this argument with Danylyk’s testimony that while they agreed to be married, showed themselves as married by buying a house, acted like a married couple, and were recognized by their family and friends as married, she was unaware that she could legally or formally be recognized as married as she came from a state where common law marriages were not recognized.
They also argue that sufficient evidence was seen when Officer Hofer’s parents decided to give up part of their heirship by testifying in favor of Danylyk. They then strike down a multitude of other common law cases that the appellant used in their argument by establishing that this case is different because it involves a widow. They quote a legal authority that establishes that it is inherently easier for a widow to prove they are common law married as the former spouse is not there to argue against it. In this case, Danylyk’s testimony was evidence that they had an agreement and the appellant never provided any evidence that David ever denied this while he was alive.
Issue #2
The appellee argued that the jury heard extensive testimony that showed that Danylyk and Hofer were viewed as married in their community. They begin by highlighting the fact that Danylyk testified to never correcting people who recognized them as married. They also reiterate that the jury accepted Danylyk’s explanation about why her legal documents are filed as single. This was a major component of the appellant argument.
They then move into the idea that Danylyk and Hofer’s decision to buy a house together and live together was evidence to suggest that they held themselves out as married (Omodele v. Adams). The appellee then introduced testimony from the Assistant Chief of the Euless Police Department that showed that the consensus among the department was that Danylyk and Hofer were married and no one had ever questioned it. This was backed by testimony from other members of the department including the Chief and Hofer’s commanding officer. Not only did they testify to this but they showed their acknowledgement of Danylyk and Hofer’s marriage by assisting Ms. Danylyk in being declared the heir and in gaining spousal benefits after Hofer’s death.
The appellee also explains that regardless of whether or not conflicting evidence is presented by the appellant, they have not shown enough evidence to support the idea that the jury verdict was clearly wrong or unjust. They then backed this with two court cases with similar characteristics such as the couple filing taxes and other legal documents as single. In these cases there was even stronger conflicting evidence such as testimony from witnesses that contradicted the claims that the people in these cases held themselves out as married to their communities. In both of these cases the appellate court ruled that even this conflicting evidence was not enough for them to overrule the initial verdict.
Issue #3
Firstly, the appellee establishes the fact that in order for this issue to be won by the appellant, they would have to show that the court erred in not submitting these instructions to the jury and show that this would have conclusively led to a different verdict. The appellee uses two similar informal marriage cases as the base for their argument on this issue. In both of these cases the judge decided not to present the requested jury instructions to the jury and in both these cases the appellate court found that the judge did not err in this decision. The appellee argues this should be the same in this case. They also highlight the fact that appellant’s argument only states that these instructions would have “assisted” the jury. They argue that this is not a valid argument because it never shows how the jury instructions would have clearly led to a different outcome.