15 years later and still asking from mulla!

[suchislife2]

read an article the other day in the Cosmopolitan mag and was shocked to read that they are thinking/have changed the laws in regards to de-facto relationships.

Basically it means that if you have been living with a person for 2 or more years you are entitled to the same laws married couples have when splitting up. Meaning if you've been with this person for 2 or more years and you break up you can claim half of their property/they can claim half or yours.

Now if you've been with your partner for quite some time, you've got a kid(s) and you've sacrificed your job to stay home and care for them, yes, I think it's right that if your partner up and leaves you that you get at least SOMETHING from them in order to look after the children/get yourself back on your feet so you can look after yourself and the children.

The new law also covers same sex relationships, which I also think is great if they have been together for a long period of time and have made sacrifices and all that like any other married/opposite sex de-facto couple.

However, if you are not in these two categories, break up with your partner of 2 years, this will bite you in the ass! Your partner basically can take you to the cleaners! They can go after EVERYTHING including the inheritance your dad/mum/grandparents gave you/will give you.

Yeah that's right, you don't have to HAVE to money YET!.....The ex can come back after a few years and claim half your income that you have earned SINCE they have left or property you've gained. YES that is correct! There have been cases where a partner has come back after 15 YEARS! and WON the court case getting half of the property their partner had gained since they split!

HOW WRONG IS THAT!!!!!!

The article was also stating, that should the partner have something happen to them after the break up, that renders them unable to work/look after them self they can claim money from the ex/force the ex to look after them financially till such time as they can get back on their feet.

Anyways, this was just my rant on what I read, I've been trying to find the article online but can't remember the name. When/if I find it I'll add it here.

What are your thoughts everyone?

[anriana]

That's interesting, but unless it's a state law in a blue state, I don't see it actually becoming law.

[Slytovhand]

Agreed - I'd need more info to validate this claim.

But if it were true, yes, it would be suck-city.

But I don't think it's all that likely to happen... for long

[Saydrah]

I think this is referring to "Common Law Marriage," which is regulated state-by-state. In my state, I believe that if you represent yourself as married, for example refer to your partner as your wife or husband even if you've never signed a marriage license, AND have been living together for three years or more, OR have filed official documents such as a tax return as a married couple, you are considered married and all current divorce law applies to you as if you were a otherwise married couple.

This does make sense to me, as it would tend to protect the rights of partners in a relationship with the responsibilities of marriage from losing the rights of marriage. If you're filing taxes together, raising children together, etc., and your partner suddenly leaves, I do think a partner who contributed to the household should be able to receive some of the assets that would be considered marital assets in a legal marriage.

[Flyndaran]

A marriage is a legal contract. Enforcing such a contract on those that never signed it with witnesses is nonsense.
I can pretend to abide by any contract, but that doesn't make it binding.

[Saydrah]

However, in most cases, a VERBAL contract IS binding. For example, if I say to someone on the street, "Arrive at 500 Main Street at 9 AM Saturday, and I will pay you $50 to clear leaves from my yard," then he performs the work and I hand him $25, he's entitled to take me to small claims court and attempt to prove that we had a verbal contract stating he'd receive $50 for the work.

The reason that most verbal contracts aren't easy to enforce is that they're hard to prove. Common law marriage, however, is less difficult to prove, especially if the couple has referred to themselves as married on a legal document like a tax return.

With few exceptions, a verbal contract is the same as a written contract, IF it is provable.

[Yfandes]

California is not a common-law state. Thus the "palimony" suits. Thus persons living together aren't automatically seen as married, but can sue for support or assets in the event of a break up.

Heres what bugs me: In any relationship (gay or straight), if there has been a joint decision that one person will stay home and take care of the kids, or the business, or a rather large household for the good of the relationship, all well and good. They SHOULD be recompensed in the case of a break up - a portion based on the length of the relationship and the sacrifices they made for the family.

However, if one person simply chooses to not work, or leaves a well paying job to follow their (low paying) dream job - should they really have a right to "half of everything"?

Two examples:

A gay childless couple
- "C" works his butt off, and has since the age of 20. High powered sales, working 60-80 hours a week. Invests in rental property wisely and by 40 was worth a million dollars. His partner "M" of 10 years was part of a band in the '80's and still harbors dreams of being a rock star 20 years later.

M works about 20 hours a week at minimum wage jobs, keeps house (small 1 bedroom place), but does not share in the living expenses. "M" is supported by "C", who is now appalled at "M's unwillingness to work. "C" tells me that he is no longer in love with "M", but is afraid to ask him to move out, fearing that "M" has a claim on more of his assets than he would be willing to part with (M would be willing to pay palimony, but fears owing "M" half a million dollars).

A straight, childless couple
- "J" is a rising executive, "P" left her 50K a year job to go to school and follow her dream of training animals with "J's" blessing. 2 Years after "P" has left her job (so was making no money), and after 7 years of marriage "J" asked for a divorce.

Because "P" was not working at the time of the divorce, the court awarded her support for two years ($2K per year) and half of all the retirement funds. Note that she would have only gotten half of the retirement if she had been working at the time of the divorce, no support.


I dunno, in a similar case to the above, I ended up owing my ex-husband $20k and a whole lotta valuable assets because he "let" me keep the house my parents had left me before I met him. I really felt penalized because I had a job when we divorced.