In Texas, common-law marriage is real. It is enforceable. And perhaps most importantly, it does not disappear simply because one party wants it to.
Far too often, we see individuals attempt to erase years of shared life by denying the existence of a marriage. Whether this denial comes from misunderstanding, manipulation, or poor legal advice, the outcome is the same: the law doesn’t care what you say after the fact. It cares what you did.
Texas Family Code § 2.401: The Three-Part Test
A common-law marriage exists in Texas when:
- There is an agreement to be married
- The couple lives together in Texas as spouses
- They hold themselves out to others as being married
If these three elements are met, the marriage is valid and must be dissolved by divorce, just like a ceremonial marriage.
Holding yourselves out can include filing joint tax returns, using the same last name, introducing each other as husband or wife, listing each other as a spouse or dependent on insurance, or co-signing on legal documents such as leases or loans.
Denial After the Fact: The Most Common Misstep
One of the most frequent tactics in contested informal marriage cases is the “we were never married” defense. In many cases, a party—or their attorney—suggests that simply denying the marriage nullifies the claim.
However, this tactic is not only incorrect—it may be viewed as a bad faith position by the court, especially when documentary or testimonial evidence supports the marriage.
The court does not expect parties to agree about the existence of a marriage during litigation. It expects the facts to speak for themselves. And when those facts meet the statutory threshold, the law does not require permission to enforce itself.
Real-World Example: The Buchanan Matter
In an ongoing matter involving Vanessa Mary Buchanan of Buchanan Insurance, represented by Fanny Martin Poteet at Modern Family Law, the opposing party appears to rely on denial despite clear indicators of an informal marriage.
Evidence in this matter includes:
- A planned wedding at the Cave With No Name in Boerne, TX
- One party receiving imputed income for insuring the other on their health plan
- Insurance records listing the other party as a dependent
- Text messages where one party weaponizes the word “husband” during disputes
- Public social media references and shared address history
These are not technicalities—they are indicators of agreement, cohabitation, and holding out under § 2.401.
When Denial Crosses the Line
Hiring inexperienced counsel to handle a high-stakes family law matter can quickly backfire, especially when the case involves complex statutory interpretation, evidentiary nuance, and a flood of procedural motion practice.
In this matter, the opposing party retained a newly minted attorney—barely one year into practice—to respond to an opposition that has already produced over 60 filings within just 30 days of initial service. That includes:
- A complete timeline matrix establishing intent, cohabitation, and holding out
- Motions to confirm the informal marriage
- Objections to improper procedure and hearsay
- Exhibits documenting imputed income, dependent insurance coverage, and witness statements
- A petition for reimbursement, forensic accounting, special master appointment, and sanctions
This is not a case that any first-year JD should be dropped into without supervision or backup. And yet here, we see that exact situation—a solo junior attorney assigned to a procedurally aggressive docket in active litigation with statutory implications.
This isn’t just poor judgment. It’s a dereliction of institutional responsibility.
At most firms, attorneys in their first year are protected, trained, and closely monitored. They shadow depositions, observe hearings, and learn docket pacing over time. They do not get deployed solo into a rapidly escalating divorce with a 100-page docket, contested informal marriage status, and adversarial filings mounting daily.
Doing so creates not only a tactical disadvantage but also long-term risk for the client. That includes:
- Missed procedural deadlines
- Inaccurate representations to the court
- Improper objections or waived rights
- Emotional reactivity instead of strategic positioning
It also raises ethical questions. The Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct require competent representation. That includes knowing when a matter is too complex for the attorney assigned.
A senior partner who allows a new JD to manage this type of case alone may be failing both the client and the young lawyer.
When denial is paired with inexperienced representation, the court often sees through it quickly. The filings tell a different story. The documents don’t lie. The timeline, the exhibits, the emails, and the insurance plans speak louder than any brief argument made by a flustered junior trying to stay afloat in open water.
And while the court will not fault a young lawyer for inexperience, it will scrutinize the decisions of the firm that placed them.
This is why experienced counsel matters. This is why strategies matter.
Because the law doesn’t bend to discomfort, but to evidence. Handling a high-stakes family law matter can quickly backfire, especially when the case involves complex statutory interpretation, evidentiary nuance, and a flood of procedural motion practice.
In this matter, the opposing party retained a newly minted attorney to respond to an opposition that has already produced more than 60 filings in under 30 days since initial service. The imbalance is not simply about experience; it’s about bandwidth, legal strategy, and tactical fluency under pressure.
When denial is coupled with underprepared representation, the result is predictable: missed deadlines, flawed arguments, and exposure to sanctions.
There is also the issue of prejudice to the client. A litigant who relies on legal counsel expects that counsel to understand the jurisdiction, the procedural obligations, and the substantive law. When a first-year attorney walks into a high-conflict common-law divorce with a five-alarm docket already in progress, they are often outmatched before they even file their first motion.
This is not just a disservice to the client; it raises ethical concerns about adequate representation under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct.
Legal Consequences of Denial in Informal Marriage Cases
If a party denies a marriage despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, several consequences may follow:
- Judicial skepticism toward their testimony
- Risk of sanctions or bad faith findings
- Increased likelihood that the matter goes to jury trial
- Additional legal costs for all parties
- Diminished credibility for both the party and their counsel
Texas courts rely on the preponderance of the evidence standard in common-law marriage cases. This means that if the evidence tips just slightly more toward marriage than not, the court may recognize the marriage. Denial, no matter how forceful, cannot override that.
Jury Trial Rights and Fact Issues
Under Texas law, disputes over the existence of an informal marriage are treated as fact questions, and either party can request a jury trial. This is a critical safeguard for ensuring that denial tactics do not unilaterally define the outcome.
The jury is asked whether the three elements under Texas Family Code § 2.401 were satisfied. If they answer yes, the court proceeds as if a valid marriage existed. That means community property is subject to division, spousal rights attach, and the parties cannot walk away without a formal divorce decree.
If one party attempts to convince the court that “we never agreed to be married,” but there are emails, text messages, insurance documents, and witness testimony to the contrary, the jury may find that the denial is not credible and may punish the strategy.
Why This Matters for Clients and Counsel
Texas common-law marriage is not a trap. It is not a loophole. It is a recognition of reality. When two people live as spouses, present themselves as spouses, and agree to be spouses, the law affirms that status.
Counsel who advise clients to deny the marriage in hopes of avoiding property division or spousal obligations risk more than just a failed motion. They risk reputational damage, court sanctions, and potential bar complaints.
For clients, denial may feel emotionally satisfying short term. But if the facts point to a marriage, denial will not stop the court from enforcing the law.
Conclusion: The Law Doesn’t Care How You Feel. It Cares What You Did.
For a deeper look at what constitutes a valid informal marriage under Texas law, including statutory elements, case law, and how to prove agreement, cohabitation, and holding out, read our companion piece:
🔗 Common-Law Marriage in Texas: Legal Definition & Proof
Texas Family Code § 2.401 exists to protect both parties in a relationship that walks, talks, and lives like a marriage. It ensures that no one can retroactively deny what was lived, shared, and publicly represented.
If the relationship meets the legal threshold, the court can and will treat it like a marriage and require a divorce to dissolve it.
Denial is not a defense. It is a strategy of delay and deflection. And in the end, it fails.
