Definition

[rch105]

Pennsylvania ...What is the definition of the following "lived separate and apart for a period of at least two years." Do you have to live in different households / addresses, or have no intimate contact, what? Help please. tnx, rch

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

Originally posted by rch105
Pennsylvania ...What is the definition of the following "lived separate and apart for a period of at least two years." Do you have to live in different households / addresses, or have no intimate contact, what? Help please. tnx, rch

My response:

Now, I want you to imagine the front door of your house. Then, put the threshold of the doorway in your mind's eye. Next, I want you to imagine "him" on the outside of that doorway and threshold.

Then, I want you to start singing the words, "You put your right foot in, you take your right foot out, you put your right foot in, and you shake it all about. You do the Hokey Pokey and you turn yourself around. That's what it's all about ! "

I like the Hokey Pokey part !


Anyway, back to serious business. You forgot the last words of that sentence, which are a part of the law; "without cohabitation."

The law cannot keep you from "seeing" someone, or from having "visitors" - - you will comply with the law as long as both spouses are not "cohabitating".

So, as long as you're not living together, you can Hokey Pokey each other all you want.

Good luck to you.

IAAL

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

C'mon people - - this is some of my funniest material !

Woa, tough audience today . . .

IAAL

[LegalBeagle]

Originally posted by I AM ALWAYS LIABLE
C'mon people - - this is some of my funniest material !

and you know what? That is the really sad part!

Actually, I was under the impression that even if you did live apart, if you were still Hokey Pokeying, then one of the parties could claim the relationship was alive and contest the seperation time.

Unless you really did mean Hokey Pokey as in the dance and not what I was thinking..

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

Hey, it was worth a low groan, wasn't it ?

Anyway, Pennsylvania law is as follows:

PENNSYLVANIA DOMESTIC RELATIONS (TITLE 23) DIVORCE
§ 3103. Definitions.
"Separate and apart."
Complete cessation of any and all cohabitation, whether living in the same residence or not.

So, under this definition, theoretically, both spouses could in fact stay in the the same residence, but just no living in the same portions of the house; e.g., no sleeping together.

However, if they are physically living apart; e.g., man lives in tent in backyard, while wife lives the "good life" in the house, then I do not believe this definition reaches the issue of whether they can still Hokey Pokey on weekends.

This is because the word "cohabitation" does not mean sexual relations. If that is what the PA Legislature wanted to convey, it would have been a simple matter of saying just that; i.e., they don't have to beat around the bush, and say what they mean.

And besides, who's going to know ? The "Living Separate and Apart" police ? Believe me, lots of couples lie through their teeth on the court forms anyway just to get a divorce. Who's going to tell ?

IAAL

[Edited by I AM ALWAYS LIABLE on 05-10-2001 at 04:55 PM]

[LegalBeagle]

Well, they are a funny lot up in PA.. I can hear it now..

'Yes judge, I do want to divorce this awful man and we have lived apart for 2 years. Oh, by the way, sorry about the stains on your desk, we had not done the Hokey Pokey all morning and was desperate for a table!'


Hey pal, have you watched any of the Court-TV this week regarding the trial of Nathaniel Brazill (shot his teacher last May) down here in FL? Boy, did that defence attorney start to look haggard..

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

No, not really. However, what I've heard and read about the case . . . it's no wonder he's haggard . . . everybody (including myself) wants to see that kid fry !

IAAL

[LegalBeagle]

Originally posted by I AM ALWAYS LIABLE
My response:

No, not really. However, what I've heard and read about the case . . . it's no wonder he's haggard . . . everybody (including myself) wants to see that kid fry !
IAAL

Unfortunately, that is not going to happen in this case.. instead us tax payers will be supporting him for the next 30 years. I guess it is a good job that CA does not fry people considering the power shortage

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

Yeah, you're right. We don't have enough electricity to operate a light, let alone "the chair". I'm using peddle power just to keep this damn computer running. Whew ! !

Actually, just as a point of moderate to little interest, Los Angeles has it's own, closed, energy producing system. We are run by the Department of Water & Power, started years and years ago by William Mulholland (for whom "Mulholland Drive" is named for) during the Tostada and Taco Inquisition days. Anyway, we're not attached to the "Edison" or any other "grid", and are completely self-supporting and sustaining.

So, when the rest of the State is experiencing Brown-outs, or Black-outs, Los Angeles just keeps humming along. Yes, it's gotten really, really expensive but we have our own energy production and supplies.

Hey, where's our original writer ? No comments ? Not even a word ?

IAAL

[Edited by I AM ALWAYS LIABLE on 05-10-2001 at 05:36 PM]