Fact-Check Any Claim. Instantly.

Real sources. Independent analysis. Human review.

Claim analyzed

“Common law marriages are legally recognized in all US states after a certain number of years living together.”

The Conclusion

The claim is
False
2/10

Executive Summary

The claim is false. Only 8-9 states recognize common law marriage, not all 50 states. No state automatically creates common law marriage simply after living together for a set time period—additional requirements like mutual intent are needed.

Warnings

  • The claim contains a hasty generalization fallacy, incorrectly extrapolating from one state's narrow provision to all US states
  • Most states (like Illinois since 1905) do not recognize common law marriage at all, contradicting the 'all states' assertion
  • No state treats mere cohabitation duration as automatically creating marriage—additional elements like mutual intent and holding out as married are typically required
Full Analysis

The Claim

How we interpreted the user input

Intent

The user wants to know if common law marriages are recognized in all US states after a certain period of cohabitation.

Testable Claim

The user's input, neutralized and hardened into a testable hypothesis

“Common law marriages are legally recognized in all US states after a certain number of years living together.”

The Research

What we found online

Summary of Findings

11 sources used 11 refuting

All sources are listed in the Sources section at the end of this report.

The Debate

The for and against arguments

P
Proponent Argues TRUE

While the evidence shows limited state recognition, Source 7 demonstrates that New Hampshire explicitly establishes common law marriage after 3 years of cohabitation, proving the fundamental principle that time-based recognition does exist in US law. Source 10 confirms that all states must recognize common law marriages validly established in other jurisdictions, meaning couples who meet time requirements in states like New Hampshire gain nationwide legal recognition through the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

O
Opponent Rebuttal

You're cherry-picking New Hampshire to rescue a claim about “all US states” and “after a certain number of years,” but even your own cited Source 7 undercuts you by noting “no special time limit is necessary” generally, while Source 5 explicitly says no state treats cohabiting for a specific number of years as automatically creating a common-law marriage. And your Full Faith and Credit leap doesn't fix the motion: Source 10 says only a small set of states allow forming new common-law marriages and others may recognize out-of-state ones, which is categorically different from your claim that every state recognizes them after living together for some set time.

O
Opponent Argues FALSE

The motion is false because multiple sources explicitly state common law marriage is not recognized in all 50 states—Illinois has not allowed it since 1905 (Source 2: Illinois Legal Aid Online) and Sterling Lawyers notes it's recognized in only a limited set of jurisdictions and not, for example, Wisconsin (Source 9: Sterling Lawyers, LLC). It's also false that a “certain number of years living together” triggers recognition anywhere: World Population Review says no state treats cohabiting for a specific number of years as automatically creating a common-law marriage, and instead requirements vary by state (Source 5 and Source 3: World Population Review).

P
Proponent Rebuttal

You're conflating state-by-state recognition with nationwide legal effect—Source 10 clearly states that "all states should recognize common law marriages that were established in other states that allow them," meaning couples who meet New Hampshire's explicit 3-year requirement (Source 7) gain recognition across all US states through constitutional mandate. Your claim that no state uses specific time periods ignores Source 7's direct quote of New Hampshire law requiring "3 years" of cohabitation, which directly contradicts Source 5's overgeneralized assertion and proves time-based recognition does exist in US law.

You'll need an account first

Create a free account to get exclusive early access and be the first to chat live with the Proponent and Opponent.

Live Chat is in closed beta

We're rolling this out to a small group first. Join the waitlist and we'll let you know as soon as your access is ready.

The Adjudication

How each panelist evaluated the evidence and arguments

Panelist 1 — The Source Auditor
Focus: Source Reliability & Independence
False
2/10

The most reliable sources (Illinois Legal Aid Online, World Population Review, and Nolo) consistently refute the claim, with Illinois Legal Aid explicitly stating common law marriage has been invalid since 1905, World Population Review confirming only 8-9 states recognize it, and multiple sources stating no state automatically creates common law marriage after a specific time period. The claim is demonstrably false as reliable sources confirm common law marriage is not recognized in all US states and no state uses automatic time-based recognition.

Weakest Sources

Source 8 and 9 from Sterling Lawyers have low authority scores (0.4) and provide inconsistent informationSource 6 from King Rowe Law has a low authority score (0.55) and provides general legal commentary rather than specific state law
Confidence: 8/10
Panelist 2 — The Logic Examiner
Focus: Inferential Soundness & Fallacies
False
2/10

The claim asserts a universal rule (all US states + recognition triggered by a set number of cohabitation years), but the evidence directly contradicts both parts: multiple sources state many states do not recognize common-law marriage at all (e.g., Illinois, Wisconsin) [2][9], and that no state treats mere cohabitation for a specific number of years as automatically creating a common-law marriage [5], while Source 7's New Hampshire quote is a narrow, special-purpose rule and not proof of a nationwide time-threshold rule. Therefore, the proponent's inference from (i) one state's limited statute and (ii) interstate recognition of already-valid marriages [10] to “all states recognize after a certain number of years living together” is a scope error and category mistake, so the claim is false.

Logical Fallacies

Hasty generalization / scope error: inferring a claim about "all US states" from a single state-specific (and limited) New Hampshire provision [7].Equivocation / category mistake: conflating (a) states recognizing an out-of-state marriage already validly formed elsewhere [10] with (b) each state itself recognizing/creating common-law marriage after cohabiting a certain number of years.Cherry-picking: emphasizing the "3 years" language in New Hampshire while ignoring broader statements that cohabitation duration alone is not sufficient and that many states do not recognize common-law marriage [5][2][9].
Confidence: 8/10
Panelist 3 — The Context Analyst
Focus: Completeness & Framing
False
2/10

The claim omits that only a small minority of jurisdictions allow couples to form a new common-law marriage at all, and that the widespread “after X years of living together” belief is specifically described as inaccurate—requirements typically include intent/mutual consent and holding out, not mere passage of time (Sources 3, 5, 6, 10). With full context, the statement that common-law marriage is recognized in all states after a certain number of years is fundamentally wrong (e.g., Illinois does not recognize it, and even where recognized it is not automatic after cohabitation) (Sources 2, 5, 10).

Missing Context

Most states do not allow creating new common-law marriages; only a handful do, and some recognize only pre-abolition or limited-purpose common-law marriages (Sources 1, 3, 10).No state treats cohabiting for a set number of years, by itself, as automatically creating a common-law marriage; additional elements like mutual intent and holding out are typically required (Sources 5, 6).Out-of-state recognition (often discussed under Full Faith and Credit principles) is different from a state itself recognizing/creating common-law marriage after a time period, so it does not make the “all states after X years” framing true (Source 10).New Hampshire's rule is narrow/atypical and does not generalize to “all states,” and even it is not a simple nationwide time-threshold rule (Source 7).
Confidence: 8/10

Adjudication Summary

All three panelists unanimously reached a "False" verdict with identical scores of 2/10, creating clear consensus. The Source Auditor confirmed that reliable sources consistently refute the claim, with Illinois Legal Aid explicitly stating common law marriage has been invalid since 1905 and World Population Review confirming only 8-9 states recognize it. The Logic Examiner identified critical logical fallacies, including hasty generalization from New Hampshire's narrow provision to all states, and equivocation between interstate recognition of existing marriages versus states creating new common law marriages after time periods. The Context Analyst revealed that the claim omits crucial context: most states don't allow new common law marriages, and no state treats mere cohabitation duration as automatically creating marriage. With unanimous agreement across all evaluation axes and strong supporting evidence, the consensus verdict of "False" is well-supported.

Consensus

The claim is
False
2/10
Confidence: 8/10 Unanimous

Sources

Sources used in the analysis

REFUTE
REFUTE
REFUTE
REFUTE
#10 Nolo 2022-05-17
REFUTE
#11 Modern Family Law 2025-01-01
REFUTE