[samsamsam]

(07-27-2014 12:08 AM)Fortitudinal Wrote:  

(07-26-2014 02:51 PM)Laner Wrote:  

Its an old law and it does not stand up in court for anything other than kids. If you live with a woman for a year and she tries to take half your shit the lawyers and judge would laugh in her face.

Its a non issue. Well unless you have lived together for 30 years, met when the guy was a rookie on the sales lot and now owns 20 dealerships and she helped him out all along the grind. That woman will be getting alimony for damned sure.

I'm not so sure about that. I've been told by a shark lawyer that theoretically a dame in mala Fides, could demand half your shit the moment you bring her to the bedroom.
He was dead serious. Cohabitation is almost a giveaway of half your things if she was really vicious. This applies to Ontario, couldn't tell you up about other provinces.

I guess you should only bang chicks at their place.

[Deluge]

(07-26-2014 02:51 PM)Laner Wrote:  

If you live with a woman for a year and she tries to take half your shit the lawyers and judge would laugh in her face.

Its a non issue. Well unless you have lived together for 30 years, met when the guy was a rookie on the sales lot and now owns 20 dealerships and she helped him out all along the grind. That woman will be getting alimony for damned sure.

Exactly. You need to be living together long-term for her to able to get a substantial win.

(07-27-2014 12:29 AM)samsamsam Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 12:08 AM)Fortitudinal Wrote:  

(07-26-2014 02:51 PM)Laner Wrote:  

Its an old law and it does not stand up in court for anything other than kids. If you live with a woman for a year and she tries to take half your shit the lawyers and judge would laugh in her face.

Its a non issue. Well unless you have lived together for 30 years, met when the guy was a rookie on the sales lot and now owns 20 dealerships and she helped him out all along the grind. That woman will be getting alimony for damned sure.

I'm not so sure about that. I've been told by a shark lawyer that theoretically a dame in mala Fides, could demand half your shit the moment you bring her to the bedroom.
He was dead serious. Cohabitation is almost a giveaway of half your things if she was really vicious. This applies to Ontario, couldn't tell you up about other provinces.

I guess you should only bang chicks at their place.

That's crazy. You're afraid that say a girl you fuck at your place from time to time will just make up that she's been living with you for years and sue you for alimony? She'd need to prove that she'd been living with you as a couple for that whole time. Unless she's homeless and completely off the grid that'd just be impossible, because obviously she was actually living somewhere else for the years in question.

[christpuncher]

It varies by province. But be aware that there are two kinds of common law. The first is for income tax reporting and is no big deal, the second is for spousal support.

In Alberta it kicks in after 1 year for income tax reporting and 3 years for spousal support.

I think I've also heard of cases where alimony was awarded when the couple wasn't even living together! The guy had his own separate house but spent a "significant" amount of time at her dwelling and they had a "marriage like" relationship according to "the community" (I.e. her friends and family)

[Celtic]

I suppose the thing to do is if you are going to live with a gitl for some reason,
sign a cohabitation agreement that clarifies no alimony and no common law marriage. Sucks to be litigous, but they dont leave any choice with laws like this.

Or even better, don't let a girl move in with you. I don't see the point in allowing it if you arent going to marry her, which is already a bad idea in the west for several reasons.

[Foolsgo1d]

(07-27-2014 09:30 AM)Celtic Wrote:  

I suppose the thing to do is if you are going to live with a gitl for some reason,
sign a cohabitation agreement that clarifies no alimony and no common law marriage. Sucks to be litigous, but they dont leave any choice with laws like this.

Or even better, don't let a girl move in with you. I don't see the point in allowing it if you arent going to marry her, which is already a bad idea in the west for several reasons.

If they can get around prenups, they can get around this.

These are lawyers pushing this legislation. Idle hands and lawyers are a dangerous combination I have found. More laws, more rules, they live for it.

[TravelerKai]

Texas got this from Mexico, if I recall correctly. We have had this for quite some time now. If you live in states like this and have a nice house, I wouldn't recommend running hoes through your house. Fuck them at their place. Even if there is junk all over the place. Getting them enticed about living with you is how mess gets started. Another reason why parking your car in your garage and not outside is important too, but I digress.

[Nolecbo]

How are the courts interpreting the "emotional support" cited in the original post (inside the jpg, orange box).

Does she have to present psychologists that confirm her emotional dependency?

[Anthony A. King]

Can't wait till this comes to america when marriage rate drop to all time lows.

Next thing you know the manoshpere will be saying LTR's are a trap and you shouldn't get in them. And we'll be stuck managing harems for 4 month intervals.

[polymath]

Laws like this make it possible for women to have security without getting married to men. Alimony makes it possible for women to divorce without taking a financial blow, and child support makes it possible for a woman to divorce without having to worry about the well being of her kids. Such policies weaken marriage and contribute to divorce rates.

In countries where there is no welfare, little alimony, and imperfect child support, marriages tend to do better and families tend to be more important.

The more you make marriage economically unnecessary by providing ways to receive a man's resources without calling him your husband, the weaker families and marriages become.

I'm not even taking a stance on the issue, just saying that this kind of policy weakens the family unit.

[Bad Hussar]

The bit the OP posted was from Citizenship and Immigration Canada, who deal with.... citizenship and immigration issues. No doubt there are some common law marriage provisions that are taken into account in general, but the original article described who could be considered a "spouse" for purposes of immigration. This status is generally considered an advantage to be sought out. For example, if a Canadian citizen meets a girl abroad and wants her to move back with him to live in Canada they would only need to have lived together for a year for the girl to be considered a spouse for purposes of immigration. It will still take the "hard workers" at CIC a year or even more to process the application, but it would nevertheless be substantially faster than those sitting in the general immigration queue.

[Ziltoid]

(07-26-2014 10:42 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

I'm confused by a lot of your reactions. A lot of you guys are acting like common law marriage is something new, it's been around for quite a while. Ontario's had it since 1990.

(07-25-2014 11:15 PM)Ziltoid Wrote:  

Saw this coming, doubt the US will be too far behind.

It already exists in certain states: Alabama, Colorado, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Iowa, Montana, Utah and Texas and the District of Columbia.

The trend has actually been away from common law marriage too, as recently as 2005...

Quote:

Common-law marriages can no longer be contracted in the following states, as of the dates given: Alaska (1917), Arizona (1913), California (1895), Florida (1968), Georgia (1997), Hawaii (1920), Idaho (1996), Illinois (1905), Indiana (1958), Kentucky (1852), Maine (1652, when it became part of Massachusetts; then a state, 1820), Massachusetts (1646), Michigan (1957), Minnesota (1941), Mississippi (1956), Missouri (1921), Nebraska (1923), Nevada (1943), New Mexico (1860), New Jersey (1939), New York (1933, also 1902–1908), North Dakota (1890), Ohio (1991), Pennsylvania (2005), South Dakota (1959), and Wisconsin (1917).

The following states never permitted common-law marriages: Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Louisiana, Maryland, North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Note that common-law marriage was never known in Louisiana, which is a French civil or code law jurisdiction, not an English common law jurisdiction.

The current legal precedent in Canada was apparently established as recently as the late 2000's, but you're right that common law marriage is a very old thing. However, I think we will see it increasingly come into play. If there is one group of people that have an indisputable stranglehold on society and the legal system, it's feminists/progressives, so ask yourself, is this not a great way for women to further their exploitation of men? The answer is obviously yes, so, why would it fall out of fashion any time soon, if not resurge?

There were a few recent cases of prenups being thrown out because women were allegedly under "emotional duress" when they agreed to them, thus nullifying the contract... If they can swing that, it's hardly a large leap to start demanding alimony and division of finances/property from live-in relationships.