Appellant Argument:
Issue #1
The appellant first established the fact that an agreement to be married had to be specific and mutually agreed upon. They then argue that this was not the case with Ms. Danylyk and Officer Hofer based on information from Danylyk’s testimony. Danylyk testified that there was never a formal conversation that she could point to where they agreed to be married or a date where she considered them to be married but that it was instead something that happened over the course of their relationship.
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that does not directly prove a fact but allows for a logical conclusion that a fact exists. The appellant argues that while an agreement could be assisted by circumstantial evidence, this is insufficient evidence of an agreement to be married. They also argue that no one can accidentally enter into an agreement, They argued that Ms. Danylyk’s testimony where she admitted that was not fully aware of the concept of a common law marriage shows that she could not have entered into an agreement to be common law married.
Issue #2
The appellant first uses direct testimony from the trial to prove that Danylyk and Hofer did not sufficiently hold themselves out as married to their community. Ms. Danylyk testimony revealed that there was no record of any document, both legal or social (cards, messages, social media, etc.), that acknowledged them as married or husband and wife. They filed their documentation separately as single individuals.
The appellant also showed that many of the people who helped Ms. Danylyk obtain her heirship, including the police chief, woman from the organization that introduced Ms. Danylyk to her benefits, and close colleagues of Officer Hofer, were not aware of them having separate legal documents that identified them as single. Many of them also testified that they simply “appeared to be married” or were “significant others” or “a couple” or “partners in life.” These statements do not sufficiently represent a common law marriage.
They also highlighted three separate cases that showed that occasional references as husband and wife were not sufficient evidence to a marriage and that even with this Danylyk often referred to Hofer as her fiancé. They also reiterate that between the two of them, employment records, tax returns, personal records, and loans on their house showed them as single with no documentation showing them as married. They also highlight that at Hofer’s funeral, Ms. Danylyk was introduced as his fiancé. This was agreed upon by Danylyk and Hofer’s family. They also showed that some of their close friends simply recognized them as engaged.
Issue #3
They argued that instructions 2 and 3 would have helped the jury understand that Danylyk’s claim that their marriage agreement happened overtime without a specific conversation was not sufficient evidence of an agreement.
They argue that instruction 4 would have helped the jury come to the conclusion that Ms. Danylyk’s testimony that she and Hofer occasionally referred to each other as husband and wife was not sufficient to prove that they held each other out as married.
They argued that instruction 5 would have helped the jury understand the significance of the records that showed Danylyk and Hofer as single. They argue that this would have forced them not to overlook these facts when making their decision.
They finally argue that both instructions 5 and 6 would have made the jury question whether or not the evidence that Danylyk and Hofer held themselves out to their community as married was sufficient. This would have challenged the base of their decision.