Neldon and Ina Johnson shared their lives for more than 35 years. They were sealed in an LDS temple, had children and celebrated an anniversary each year. They had shared insurance policies and joint tax filings.

Their divorce appeared to be the dissolution of a long, involved marriage — except for the part where they were never actually married.

Seven years after their divorce, amid claims from Ina Johnson that she is owed alimony, Neldon Johnson says that the divorce wasn't valid because they were never married. On Wednesday, the Utah Supreme Court heard arguments on this complicated case involving common-law marriage laws, deceit and the right of the court to rule on other marriages that aren't technically legal by state law.

When the couple filed for divorce in 2001, they both indicated that they had been married in 1964 in Arizona, which was the same thing they had told everyone else they knew over the years. The couple went so far as to have their "marriage" sealed in the Manti temple one year after their supposed wedding date.

Attorney Denver Snuffer said it is not uncommon for members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who are civilly married to later go to an LDS temple to take part in a religious marriage ceremony. When the Johnsons went, they apparently weren't required to show a marriage license, he said. The couple most likely went to the temple under the guise that they were already married.

Though the divorce was granted under the assumption that they were an actual, legal married couple, Neldon Johnson is now saying that, as the couple had never been married, the courts shouldn't have ruled on the divorce because it had been outside the court's jurisdiction.

Supreme Court justices on Wednesday defended the trial court's right to rule on the divorce, and Justice Jill Parrish said there is "no question" that courts can classify divorce cases. Parrish and Chief Justice Christine Durham both took issue with the questioning of the court's jurisdiction, especially when the doubts were raised so many years after the ruling.

"So, 20 or 40 years later, you can collaterally attack judgment based on subject-matter jurisdiction?" Durham asked.

The ability of the courts to handle divorces, even uncommon unions that may not be legal by Utah law, is the root issue of this case, attorney Rosemond Blakelock argued Wednesday. She said there will be other cases involving couples whose unions may not be valid under Utah state law who will seek divorces, and the courts should be able to make decisions in those cases.

Justice Michael Wilkins acknowledged the potential impacts of the court's decision. "What we decide here goes far beyond your clients," he said.