Common Law Complexity

[Jawari]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Indiana

Hello to all.

The ex, and I have lived in Indiana since 2006. Prior to that, we lived in Oklahoma from 2002-2006. In order to put her on my work insurance, my job (7Eleven) gave us a form to fill-out, and get notarized, declaring us common law married. That was in 2004. We moved to Indiana in Feb'06, and never got married officially. We separated July 2013, with her moving back to Oklahoma. She is now suing me for divorce. I tried calling some lawyers about it, and they informed me of a gray area, pertaining to common law marriages, specific to Oklahoma; and that, since I was, and had been, residing in Indiana, there was nothing for me to do on my end. They instructed me to call the County Court Clerk in the county of Oklahoma where this had been done, and inquire if there was any record of marriage under either of our names. They said that was very important, and would pretty much settle it. I did this, and there was no record. So, I don't know if we're considered 'married' or not. She insists we are, and has filed for divorce. Thoughts?

Thank you to anyone's input.

 

[Zigner]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Indiana

Hello to all.

The ex, and I have lived in Indiana since 2006. Prior to that, we lived in Oklahoma from 2002-2006. In order to put her on my work insurance, my job (7Eleven) gave us a form to fill-out, and get notarized, declaring us common law married. That was in 2004. We moved to Indiana in Feb'06, and never got married officially. We separated July 2013, with her moving back to Oklahoma. She is now suing me for divorce. I tried calling some lawyers about it, and they informed me of a gray area, pertaining to common law marriages, specific to Oklahoma; and that, since I was, and had been, residing in Indiana, there was nothing for me to do on my end. They instructed me to call the County Court Clerk in the county of Oklahoma where this had been done, and inquire if there was any record of marriage under either of our names. They said that was very important, and would pretty much settle it. I did this, and there was no record. So, I don't know if we're considered 'married' or not. She insists we are, and has filed for divorce. Thoughts?

Thank you to anyone's input.

It sounds to me like you considered yourselves to be married in Oklahoma in 2004 and met the requirements for a common-law marriage at that time. There doesn't have to be a "record" of the marriage at the county clerk's office. I would say that you are married and a divorce is the proper way to end that marriage.

 

[Bali Hai]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Indiana

Hello to all.

The ex, and I have lived in Indiana since 2006. Prior to that, we lived in Oklahoma from 2002-2006. In order to put her on my work insurance, my job (7Eleven) gave us a form to fill-out, and get notarized, declaring us common law married. That was in 2004. We moved to Indiana in Feb'06, and never got married officially. We separated July 2013, with her moving back to Oklahoma. She is now suing me for divorce. I tried calling some lawyers about it, and they informed me of a gray area, pertaining to common law marriages, specific to Oklahoma; and that, since I was, and had been, residing in Indiana, there was nothing for me to do on my end. They instructed me to call the County Court Clerk in the county of Oklahoma where this had been done, and inquire if there was any record of marriage under either of our names. They said that was very important, and would pretty much settle it. I did this, and there was no record. So, I don't know if we're considered 'married' or not. She insists we are, and has filed for divorce. Thoughts?

Thank you to anyone's input.

My thought:

There is only one reason why she insists you are married, money.

 

[LdiJ]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Indiana

Hello to all.

The ex, and I have lived in Indiana since 2006. Prior to that, we lived in Oklahoma from 2002-2006. In order to put her on my work insurance, my job (7Eleven) gave us a form to fill-out, and get notarized, declaring us common law married. That was in 2004. We moved to Indiana in Feb'06, and never got married officially. We separated July 2013, with her moving back to Oklahoma. She is now suing me for divorce. I tried calling some lawyers about it, and they informed me of a gray area, pertaining to common law marriages, specific to Oklahoma; and that, since I was, and had been, residing in Indiana, there was nothing for me to do on my end. They instructed me to call the County Court Clerk in the county of Oklahoma where this had been done, and inquire if there was any record of marriage under either of our names. They said that was very important, and would pretty much settle it. I did this, and there was no record. So, I don't know if we're considered 'married' or not. She insists we are, and has filed for divorce. Thoughts?

Thank you to anyone's input.

You signed and notarized a paper stating that you were married under common law. Therefore, normally that means that you have to get a divorce if you split up.

 

[ecmst12]

If you ignore.it, you lose. You need to appear in court, preferably woth a lawyer, to argue your case.

 

[Bali Hai]

You signed and notarized a paper stating that you were married under common law. Therefore, normally that means that you have to get a divorce if you split up.

That piece of paper by itself doesn't mean they are married. OP needs a lawyer to contest the marriage. If he loses that case, he'll need a divorce lawyer.

 

[cbg]

It was convenient for them to consider themselves married back when they wanted his employer to provide her health insurance. Now that it's not convenient any more, he doesn't want that to be valid.

Make up your mind. Did you fraudulently obtain health insurance ten years ago, or do you need a divorce now?

 

[Zigner]

That piece of paper by itself doesn't mean they are married. OP needs a lawyer to contest the marriage. If he loses that case, he'll need a divorce lawyer.

No, it doesn't, but it's an important part. Furthermore, it appears that he OP meets all the other requirements. The OP is married. Why should he spend all the money on an attorney to fight that, when the money can be better spent on the custody matters?

 

[Jawari]

Thank you all, very much. The affidavit has no follow-up, or contact information on it. There is a scribbled signature that is completely illegible, and a date for when their notary was to expire. There were no 'witnesses'. This was done at a 'tag agency'....which, in Oklahoma, is like a BMV, only without the capacity to issue driver's licenses. I have no idea which one, as there are many. In Oklahoma, the only common-law marriages that are completely un-contestable, are the ones prior to 1998. In 2005, they attempted to pass a law making those post-98 invalid; due to the gray area being created by the contradiction of state law, and judges' rulings on the matter; but it failed; returning them to the gray area. From 2007-2009, she wanted us to have an 'open marriage'....I don't want to bring this up, really; but is that relevant?

 

[latigo]

If you ignore.it, you lose. You need to appear in court, preferably woth a lawyer, to argue your case.

Pardon me for saying so, but that's recklessly absurd!

You would have him make a general appearance in Oklahoma and thus voluntarily submit himself to the personal jurisdiction of that court?! Foolish advice.

And he to argue what case? That he disclaims the existence of the marriage or that he desires to remain married to the woman?

 

[Zigner]

Pardon me for saying so, but that's recklessly absurd!

You would have him make a general appearance in Oklahoma and thus voluntarily submit himself to the personal jurisdiction of that court?! Foolish advice.

And he to argue what case? That he disclaims the existence of the marriage or that he desires to remain married to the woman?

It's not absurd in the slightest. The advice was to NOT ignore this. Your advice seems to imply that the OP can ignore it, relying instead on a technical jurisdictional question. The problem with YOUR advice is that it can be perceived as saying the OP can simply sit back and do nothing.

 

[Jawari]

It was convenient for them to consider themselves married back when they wanted his employer to provide her health insurance. Now that it's not convenient any more, he doesn't want that to be valid.

Make up your mind. Did you fraudulently obtain health insurance ten years ago, or do you need a divorce now?

There is no need for such hostility. It is not a matter of me being unable to make-up my mind; it is a matter of reading & hearing so much conflicting information. I just want to know if its valid, or not; because I've been told both. I responded to the court papers, in writing, myself. I am currently unemployed. I tried contacting someone to see about qualifying for free legal representation, but was told that I needed to first figure out if we were actually married, or not. I responded that I had tried, and kept getting conflicting information; that's what I needed the lawyer for. They told me it was unusual circumstances, and they were unsure what to do about it. They took my name & number; but I've received no word.

 

[LdiJ]

That piece of paper by itself doesn't mean they are married. OP needs a lawyer to contest the marriage. If he loses that case, he'll need a divorce lawyer.

Actually it does. It is a contract between the two of them to be married under common law.

 

[Jawari]

Actually it does. It is a contract between the two of them to be married under common law.

Which, I have been told, is in opposition to Oklahoma State law.

 

[Bali Hai]

No, it doesn't, but it's an important part. Furthermore, it appears that he OP meets all the other requirements. The OP is married. Why should he spend all the money on an attorney to fight that, when the money can be better spent on the custody matters?

OP didn't mention any illegitimate children coming from the relationship.