What are you stitching next?

I don't think that would work here - intent is all part of it and 20+ and five kids would be going against her. Presumably she is the one with the finances because otherwise I can't see why she would do it.

It does vary Province by Province, I think. We used to have more of Scottish law years ago but that all changed to the 50/50 thinking several years ago now, certainly by the 80s.

There was a case in the news years ago where a couple got married in January every year and "divorced" in late November/early December to avoid the "marriage penalty" taxes. It was about the time DH and I got married (the late 80's).

Cheryl

"Cheryl Isaak" wrote

The difference is that divorce is a legal procedure, which involves at minimum an application to a court and a decree being issued. Being divorced is a matter of legal record. If someone divorces, they were also married, and there is a marriage certificate that gives the date and time that legal relationship started.

The matter of when a relationship gains common law status involves the intention and conduct of the couple. There is no certificate that gives the date it started, and there is no legal record of when it dissolved, unless the people involved that steps to have those things done.

Legislation on common law tends to be "by default"stuff. If you have lived together so long, and don't have any binding legal agreement to the contrary, or don't have children, this is what the law will assume is the case and here are the consequences. You can usually contract out of that law by making some other kind of arrangement by contract (more or less like a prenup). And there is no reason a judge couldn't find that a couple was living in a common law relationship before the time period kicks in---by their actions, including things like buying a house together, opening joint bank accounts, assuming joint debts, putting the other person on your credit card, health plan, lease etc etc--stuff that shows an intention to combine your property, assume joint responsibilities, and form a unit.

Dawne

They supposedly only did it for tax reasons. There was a loophole in the IRS code that taxed couples if they were married, filing jointly or singly at the end of the year at a higher rate that than if they were two single people at the end of the year. It was repealed ages ago, but was in affect when DH and I got married. Anyone else remember the " marriage penalty". It really hurt when there were two high wage earners. DH calculated that being married and having no children around 6K a year more in taxes allowed/paid until DS arrived.

I think the whole common law thing outdated now - most women at least know they have rights even if they choose to ignore them.

As to common debts and ownerships, I think they had structured everything to look innocuous to the IRS - the real object of their actions.

Cheryl

Common-law relationships are becoming more and more popular in Canada - especially in Quebec. Although many couples eventually get married (resulting in the very common situation of couples living common-law for years until they feel that they can afford a big wedding), some never bother.

Cheryl P.

I did see an interesting stat at one point that showed those couples who lived together and finally tied the knot, divorced more frequently.

I've seen it too, but I've never seen it adjusted for religion. One of my Catholic friends would NEVER cohabit without benefit of clergy and would NEVER get a divorce. On the other end of the spectrum, I have a non-religious friend who sees absolutely nothing wrong with either of them.

I'd like to see how the statistic changes when people who don't believe in either cohabitation or divorce are removed from the equation.

I can tell you that if we'd lived together first and I'd found out what he was really like behind the facade, we wouldn't have gotten married, so there wouldn't have been a divorce. But for a couple hours here and there, he could keep up the act, and hide things (like the bounced check notices) from me.

That is interesting. I've heard the same thing. Mark and I lived together for five years before marrying. He even married me before the money came down the pike! LOL. We're together for 15 years. It changes, people relax into comfort or not. I am wholly able to just be me and he is able to be him.

Sometimes marriage gives the impression to "some" people (some meaning who knows what) that there is a sense of ownership. Well, there ain't. Marriage, if healthy is freedom to be who we are. At least this is my experience.

I married in the RC Church first time around. The reason I got divorced was brutal. He was not a bad person, just limited. I knew it before, but I lied to myself. I can't blame that off, however, what I didn't know was that he was sexually weird.

One day I ordered wall paper from the back of a magazine...those half price places. They told me my credit card was maxed out. Hmmm. I gave another number; also maxed out. Now, I had twenty thousand dollars worth of credit, where did this go. I looked at the bills which he usually paid. There were places like Joy's Fashions, fifty dollars...tons and tons of them.

While I was going to group therapy he was on the phone sex habit. He ramped up twenty thousand in four years. I couldn't live with that weridness. It just freaked me right the F out.

I left my number with his mother who was devout RC and told her if he ever wanted to marry in the church again to contact me through this number and I would do anything I could to help him get an annullment. I never heard a word.

So weird, that. Married, then not, then goodbye. Forever. I paid half the bills and left. Brutal.

"Cheryl Isaak" wrote

I think it is more that it has become necessary to have some sort of basis for sorting things about among the many couples who choose not to marry. It actually is helpful for stuff like insurance, death benefits and wills, and even who can give medical consents. And there are still people who sort of drift into relationships---live together for a while, and only when they break up realize how much stuff, both assets and debts, they've managed to run up, and need to attend to. (People tend not to wait to buy stuff these days.) And there are people, both men and women, who act to their detriment because they believe it is true love and the other party really will marry them, who need some legal recourse. No one ever thinks the worst will happen until it does.

Dawne