Maryland.

In a fight over who inherits an intestate estate, the Dead Man’s Statute silences the interested claimant — but not that claimant’s spouse.

Sam Duraiswamy died intestate in 2021 with no spouse or children of record; his blood heirs lived in India. The Estate of Diane Adams — his decades-long companion, who died eight days after him — claimed she was his common-law wife (a status Maryland recognizes only if validly formed in a jurisdiction that allows it) and therefore the heir. The Orphans’ Court for Montgomery County found the evidence legally insufficient to establish a common-law marriage, and the Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed across the board. Three holdings matter to the T&E desk. Dead Man’s Statute (Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 9-116): in a proceeding by or against an estate, a witness with a direct pecuniary and proprietary interest in the outcome may not testify to a transaction with, or statement by, the decedent — so the personal representative of the opposing estate, who had filed a claim and stood to take as a distributee, was properly barred; but the spouse of an interested party does not acquire a pecuniary interest merely from the marital relationship, so her testimony about the decedent’s statements was admissible. Trial administration: a court has broad discretion to reopen evidence after an evidentiary hearing — allowing newly-located blood heirs to appear, submit exhibits, and argue, with the other side given a chance to respond, was no abuse. Standard of review: an orphans’ court’s factual findings stand unless clearly erroneous, and non-persuasion requires only honest doubt, so the finding of “no common-law marriage” held on a de novo review of the law.

Carry three things into your files. One: when you litigate heirship or a creditor claim against an estate, map every witness against § 9-116 before trial — a personal representative or claimant who is also a potential distributee is an interested witness and cannot put the decedent’s words into evidence, but a non-interested family member (here, a spouse) can, so plan your proof around who is actually disqualified. Two: a common-law-marriage claim asserted to capture an intestate share must be anchored to a specific sister-state where the couple cohabited with present marital intent; vague decades of companionship in Maryland will not clear the bar, and the proponent carries the persuasion burden. Three: the deferential clearly-erroneous review of orphans’-court fact-finding means the record you build at the hearing is the ballgame — preserve your evidentiary objections and your offers of proof, because the appellate court will not reweigh the evidence. For the planner, the lesson is upstream: an unmarried couple who intend to provide for each other should say so in wills, beneficiary designations, and titling, not leave it to a posthumous common-law-marriage contest.

In re Estate of Sam Duraiswamy, No. 1758, Sept. Term 2024 (Md. App. Ct. Apr. 3, 2026) (reported) · official opinion — mdcourts.gov