When You “Got Married” in a Church but Never Got a License: New York Law May Say You Were Never Married
New York does not have common-law marriage. That means you do not become “married” simply because you lived together for years, introduced each other as spouses, filed paperwork as “married,” or held yourselves out as a family. In a recent First Department decision, Funti v Andrews, the Appellate Division confronted a hard version of that problem: a couple participated in a religious event where one party later claimed there was an impromptu wedding ceremony, but they never obtained a marriage license and the ceremony did not satisfy New York’s statutory solemnization rules. The result was blunt. No valid marriage meant no divorce. (Justia Law)
The legal issue: can there be a valid New York marriage without a marriage license?
As a baseline, New York’s Domestic Relations Law requires a marriage license. (Justia Law) But the law also contains a safety valve: the failure to obtain a license does not automatically void a marriage if the marriage was “solemnized” between adults. That is where most people get tripped up. The statute does not say “no license is fine.” It says “no license can be forgiven if solemnization happened in a legally recognized way.”
Domestic Relations Law § 12 provides two ways a marriage can be “solemnized.” One is the secular declaration route: the parties must solemnly declare, in the presence of an authorized officiant and at least one witness, that they take each other as spouses. (New York State Senate) The other is the denomination route: if a religion has a particular customary mode of solemnizing marriages, a marriage can be valid if it was solemnized in the manner historically used and practiced in that denomination. (New York State Senate)
What happened in Funti v Andrews
The parties’ son was baptized at a Coptic Orthodox church. After the baptism, the plaintiff was baptized into the Coptic Orthodox Church. She later claimed that, after her baptism, the bishop asked if she and the defendant wanted to be married and performed an impromptu wedding ceremony. The defendant said it was a blessing, not a marriage. It was undisputed they had no marriage license, did not exchange rings, made no vows, and did not execute a marriage certificate, among other traditional requirements described in the record.
Years later, the plaintiff filed for divorce. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing there was no marriage to dissolve. The trial court held a hearing and, despite extensive testimony from the bishop and others about Coptic marriage requirements, the court largely avoided relying on religious requirements. Instead, it focused on secular conduct after the ceremony, including property transfers, documents where the defendant had described them as married, and social statements made at a luncheon afterward. On that basis, the trial court declared a valid marriage existed. The Appellate Division reversed. (Justia Law)
Why the First Department reversed: solemnization is a legal test, not a vibe
The First Department’s core holding was straightforward. Because there was no marriage license, the only way the plaintiff could maintain a divorce action was by proving solemnization under DRL § 12 and DRL § 25. (Justia Law) The parties did not solemnly declare they took each other as spouses, so the case turned on whether the ceremony matched the denomination’s established practice for solemnizing a marriage. (Justia Law)
The constitutional complication here is the First Amendment’s “religious entanglement” problem. Courts cannot decide doctrinal disputes. The First Department explained that when the parties genuinely dispute what a religion requires for a valid marriage, the court may have no neutral standard to apply and the complaint may have to be dismissed rather than adjudicated through religious interpretation.
But that is not what happened in Funti. The record contained undisputed evidence of what the Coptic Church required for a proper marriage ceremony, largely through the bishop’s testimony, and the plaintiff did not actually dispute those requirements. (Justia Law) That gave the court a neutral yardstick: apply the proven requirements to the facts and decide whether the ceremony met them. Using that neutral standard, the First Department held the ceremony was not solemnized under New York law and the parties were not validly married.
Most importantly for New York divorce practice, the court rejected the trial judge’s approach of substituting secular “conduct” for the statutory solemnization test. Post-ceremony behavior may show what someone believed, but it does not replace the legal question of whether the ceremony itself satisfied DRL § 12. (Justia Law) The First Department also reiterated a point that matters in many modern disputes: a couple’s intent about whether they wanted the marriage “legally recognized” is not dispositive because marriage is a legal status defined by the State, not a private label controlled by the parties. (Justia Law)
Why this matters for New York divorce, custody, and financial claims
When a court finds there was no valid marriage, the divorce case can be dismissed for the simple reason that Supreme Court cannot dissolve a marriage that never existed. That has serious consequences. Equitable distribution, spousal maintenance, and the full suite of divorce remedies are tied to marital status. If you were never married, you may be pushed into a different set of claims for property and financial disputes, often under contract, unjust enrichment, partition, or other civil theories. In other words, your “divorce case” can turn into a far messier and less predictable litigation problem.
This decision also carries an operational warning for religious communities and couples who combine religious rites with informal planning. If you want the protections and clarity of a New York marriage, you should obtain a marriage license and ensure the ceremony is documented properly. If you do not, you may discover years later, in the middle of a breakup, that one side cannot prove a legally recognized marriage and therefore cannot access divorce remedies.
If you are unsure whether you are validly married under New York law, do not guess and do not rely on what family members said at a luncheon. The legal test is statutory and fact-specific. Funti v Andrews is a reminder that New York courts will analyze solemnization under DRL § 12 and will not allow “we acted married” to substitute for the required ceremony and proof when there was no license. (Justia Law)
If your relationship is ending and there is any question about whether the marriage was valid, this issue needs to be evaluated early because it can control the entire strategy and determine whether Supreme Court even has a divorce case to adjudicate.
For counsel that is practical, strategic, and current on New York matrimonial law developments, contact the Law Offices of Mindin & Mindin, P.C. to schedule a confidential matrimonial consultation. Call 888.501.3292 to discuss your situation and the fastest path to clarity.