Texas Appellate Court Affirms Jury’s Rejection of Informal Marriage Claims in West v. Ward
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Wright, 09-24-00060-CV, January 29, 2026.
On appeal from the 410th District Court of Montgomery County
Synopsis
The Ninth Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s judgment following a jury verdict that rejected a claim of informal marriage under Texas Family Code § 2.401(a)(2). The court held that despite conflicting testimony and social media “holding out” evidence, the jury was the sole judge of credibility and could reasonably rely on the appellant’s own text messages identifying as “single” or “engaged” to find that a present agreement to be married did not exist.
Relevance to Family Law
For the family law litigator, West v. Ward serves as a stark reminder of the “all or nothing” nature of the “agreement to be married” element in informal marriage claims. It demonstrates that social media evidence and public representations—often the cornerstone of such claims—can be thoroughly neutralized by private communications that suggest a future intent to marry rather than a present state of marriage. Furthermore, the opinion underscores the strategic value of bifurcating the marriage issue from the rest of the divorce proceeding to focus the jury entirely on the jurisdictional existence of the marriage.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Cristy West filed for divorce from Jimmie Ward, a professional football player, asserting the existence of an informal marriage dating back to July 2020. West alleged that the parties moved into a Houston home together, celebrated their union in Jamaica, and publicly acknowledged their marriage through social media and private references. Ward countered with a verified denial, asserting they were never informally married and that no mutual agreement to be married existed.
The trial was bifurcated to address only the common law marriage issue. At trial, the jury heard conflicting testimony from a private chef whose credibility was severely impeached by recorded conversations and allegations of a $50,000 bribery offer. Ward testified that while they were in a relationship and lived together, they were merely engaged, supported by the fact that he had a lawyer draft a prenuptial agreement for the future. The most damaging evidence against West’s claim included her own text messages from late 2022—well after the alleged marriage date—in which she referred to herself as “single” and Ward as her “fiancé,” and even discussed canceling a planned future wedding.
Issues Decided
The Court of Appeals addressed three primary issues: (1) whether the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the jury’s finding that no informal marriage existed; (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in overruling jury charge objections; and (3) whether the trial court erred in denying a motion for new trial.
Rules Applied
The court applied Texas Family Code § 2.401(a)(2), which requires a party alleging an informal marriage to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) the parties agreed to be married; (2) after the agreement, they lived together in Texas as husband and wife; and (3) they represented to others in Texas that they were married.
The court also relied on the standard of review for legal and factual sufficiency, emphasizing that the jury is the sole judge of the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony. Under City of Keller v. Wilson, the court must credit favorable evidence if reasonable jurors could and disregard contrary evidence unless reasonable jurors could not.
Application
The court’s analysis centered on the “agreement” prong of the informal marriage test. While West presented evidence of social media posts where Ward purportedly referred to her as “wifey” or “husband,” Ward provided evidence that these captions were edited or that the terms were used colloquially rather than as a legal representation of status.
The legal narrative turned on the distinction between a future intent to marry and a present agreement to be married. The court found that West’s own text messages were the proverbial smoking gun; by stating she was “single” or “engaged” and referring to an upcoming wedding in 2023, she effectively admitted the absence of a present marriage agreement in 2020. The court reasoned that even if some evidence pointed toward “holding out” (representing to others), the failure of the “agreement” element was fatal to the claim. The jury was entitled to believe Ward’s testimony and the documentary evidence of West’s own admissions over the shifting testimony of the parties’ private chef.
Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment. On the sufficiency issues, the court held that the jury’s finding was supported by the evidence, particularly given the high level of deference owed to the jury’s credibility determinations regarding the conflicting testimony of the parties and their employees.
Regarding the jury charge and the motion for new trial, the court held that the trial court acted within its discretion. The broad-form submission of the marriage question was proper, and West failed to demonstrate that the trial court’s rulings were arbitrary or unreasonable.
Practical Application
West v. Ward highlights the necessity of a rigorous “digital audit” of a client’s communications before asserting or defending an informal marriage claim. In the age of social media, litigators often rely on Instagram or Facebook posts to prove the “represented to others” prong, but this case confirms that private text messages often carry more weight as evidence of the parties’ true “agreement.”
Practitioners should also consider the strategic use of bifurcation. By isolating the marriage issue, the defense can prevent the jury from being distracted by potentially sympathetic facts regarding the breakdown of the relationship or child-related issues, focusing them instead on the technical statutory requirements of § 2.401.
Checklists
Auditing the “Agreement” Element
- Review all text messages and emails between the parties for terms such as “engaged,” “fiancé,” or “future wedding.”
- Identify any instances where the claimant identified as “single” on tax returns, loan applications, or leases.
- Determine if a prenuptial agreement was drafted or discussed, as this often indicates a lack of a present agreement to be married.
- Cross-reference the date of the alleged “agreement” with subsequent actions that contradict a permanent marital union.
Defending Against Social Media Evidence
- Obtain metadata for social media posts to determine if captions were edited after the original posting date.
- Search for “single” status designations on social media profiles during the alleged marriage period.
- Investigate the context of terms like “wifey” or “hubby,” which may be argued as terms of endearment rather than legal representations.
- Depose third parties who commented on such posts to see if they truly believed the parties were legally married or merely in a committed relationship.
Citation
West v. Ward, No. 09-24-00060-CV (Tex. App.—Beaumont Jan. 29, 2026, no pet. h.).
Full Opinion
~~5f519ab4-e14e-480d-b48c-ec18d021c007~~
Share this content:
