• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Health Insurance--Married but Not Living Together

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Blah

Junior Member
What is the name of your state? CA


My grandmother and grandfather are living apart but still married. She went and cancelled him from the health insurance and now he has none. Anyone know how we might be able to get him back on? Cobra won't work because she cancelled him during an open enrollment period and not in the middle of the year so she didnt need to give a reason...so no qualifiying event. Any ideas, greatly appreciated!
 


You can't make your grandmother pay for your grandfather's health insurance costs if she doesn't want to pay for it. Are you willing to pay the premiums for his health insurance? Perhaps you can ask your grandmother if you reimburse her up front for the cost, will she be willing to put him back on...
 

Bali Hai

Senior Member
BeenAround said:
You can't make your grandmother pay for your grandfather's health insurance costs if she doesn't want to pay for it. Are you willing to pay the premiums for his health insurance? Perhaps you can ask your grandmother if you reimburse her up front for the cost, will she be willing to put him back on...
Grammy has a duty to take care of Grampy...legally. With or without anyones help.

AND vise-versa.

Sorry if that comes as a shock to all you female viewers.
 
Last edited:
I have never heard of a law that specifically states that a spouse must cover the other spouse on their insurance and also pay for it. My neighbor, who was in a similar situation, was directed by his attorney that he was not obligated to do so. Perhaps CA people do things differently...as usual.
 

Bali Hai

Senior Member
BeenAround said:
I have never heard of a law that specifically states that a spouse must cover the other spouse on their insurance and also pay for it. My neighbor, who was in a similar situation, was directed by his attorney that he was not obligated to do so. Perhaps CA people do things differently...as usual.
Laws are for judges to interpret and render their decisions upon.

What you have "heard" means nothing.
 
O

Okay

Guest
Bali Hai said:
Grammy has a duty to take care of Grampy...legally. With or without anyones help.

AND vise-versa.

Sorry if that comes as a shock to all you female viewers.

You have obviously seen my posts concerning the verbiage you have used in your response. However, you have misinterpreted me. What you didn't "flash" on, because you didn't know the law, was that our writer said that Grammy and Grampa are not living together.

The law in California is, and as a general rule, for so long as husband and wife or registered domestic partners are living together, they owe each other a mutual duty of support. [Ca Fam § 4300--"Subject to this division (Ca Fam § 3500 et seq.), "a person shall support the person's spouse"; Marriage of Pendleton & Fireman (2000) 24 Cal.4th 39, 52, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 278, 288; see also Borelli v. Brusseau (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 647, 652, 16 Cal.Rptr.2d 16, 18--"husband and wife assume mutual obligations of support upon marriage"]

So, you missed an important point. Next time, ask me. This is my practice area.

IAAL
 

Bali Hai

Senior Member
okay said:
You have obviously seen my posts concerning the verbiage you have used in your response. However, you have misinterpreted me. What you didn't "flash" on, because you didn't know the law, was that our writer said that Grammy and Grampa are not living together.

The law in California is, and as a general rule, for so long as husband and wife or registered domestic partners are living together, they owe each other a mutual duty of support. [Ca Fam § 4300--"Subject to this division (Ca Fam § 3500 et seq.), "a person shall support the person's spouse"; Marriage of Pendleton & Fireman (2000) 24 Cal.4th 39, 52, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 278, 288; see also Borelli v. Brusseau (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 647, 652, 16 Cal.Rptr.2d 16, 18--"husband and wife assume mutual obligations of support upon marriage"]

So, you missed an important point. Next time, ask me. This is my practice area.

IAAL

Not trying to elbow you out sir, and I know your expertise in this area of the law.

Respectively, I'm certainly glad you came in and cleared this up for the poster and me.

This is a clear example (in my opinion) why people need attorneys (such as yourself) in such serious matters and I'm glad you are here to help them and me.

I will with all due respest for you, and, the position you hold humbly, ask you for advice next time before trying to give errorous or inaccurate advice to someone.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

LdiJ

Senior Member
Its incredible stupid for someone to cancel their spouse's medical insurance before a divorce is finalized, PARTICULARLY in a community property state.

However its still incredibly stupid even in an equitable distribution state. Many equitable distribution states hold spouses responsible for medical expenses even after separation.
 
O

Okay

Guest
LdiJ said:
Its incredible stupid for someone to cancel their spouse's medical insurance before a divorce is finalized, PARTICULARLY in a community property state.

However its still incredibly stupid even in an equitable distribution state. Many equitable distribution states hold spouses responsible for medical expenses even after separation.

If they're not living together, why? Explain that to me. Are you thinking that they would first need a Legal Separation?

Before you answer, remember, this is my practice area, and you're not an attorney. You've never been an advocate.

Now, keeping these things in mind, go ahead. Justify your response.

IAAL
 
O

Okay

Guest
Well, I'm waiting, Ldij.

"Hmmmm. Maybe he knows something I don't."

Yeah, that's probably it.


IAAL
 

Bali Hai

Senior Member
Okay said:
Well, I'm waiting, Ldij.

"Hmmmm. Maybe he knows something I don't."

Yeah, that's probably it.


IAAL

Not so sir....I think some people are intimidated by real attorneys...

Myself, I'm not stupid enough to try and challenge one.

Have a good evening sir.
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
Okay said:
If they're not living together, why? Explain that to me. Are you thinking that they would first need a Legal Separation?

Before you answer, remember, this is my practice area, and you're not an attorney. You've never been an advocate.

Now, keeping these things in mind, go ahead. Justify your response.

IAAL
My response is based on the many, many, many people who have been stuck with sharing a spouses medical debt....in every state in this country.....because they either didn't have health insurance, or were dumb enough to cancel their spouse's health insurance before they were actually divorced.

Its just plain a stupid thing to do.
 

Kane

Member
Okay said:
If they're not living together, why? Explain that to me. Are you thinking that they would first need a Legal Separation?

Before you answer, remember, this is my practice area, and you're not an attorney. You've never been an advocate.

Now, keeping these things in mind, go ahead. Justify your response.

IAAL
Hey IAAL why did you get banned, anyway?
 
O

oo2

Guest
LdiJ said:
My response is based on the many, many, many people who have been stuck with sharing a spouses medical debt....in every state in this country.....because they either didn't have health insurance, or were dumb enough to cancel their spouse's health insurance before they were actually divorced.

Its just plain a stupid thing to do.

Well, there goes STUPID again! I knew you knew nothing about this subject. Hang it up, Ldij. Admit it, you know absolutely nothing about law generally, and specifically, nothing about California law.

You see, Dufus, if the parties have separated in anticipation of dissolution or legal separation, there is no rational basis for implying a joint debt. Quite the contrary, in a property division proceeding, the court "has jurisdiction to order reimbursement to one, not incurring the debt, in cases it deems appropriate for debts paid after separation but before trial." [Ca Fam § 2626 (emphasis added); see generally, Marriage of Feldner (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 617, 624, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 312, 316]

You see, STUPID, if you had read my post, above, where I said . . .

"The law in California is, and as a general rule, for so long as husband and wife or registered domestic partners are living together, they owe each other a mutual duty of support. [Ca Fam § 4300--"Subject to this division (Ca Fam § 3500 et seq.), "a person shall support the person's spouse"; Marriage of Pendleton & Fireman (2000) 24 Cal.4th 39, 52, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 278, 288; see also Borelli v. Brusseau (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 647, 652, 16 Cal.Rptr.2d 16, 18--"husband and wife assume mutual obligations of support upon marriage"]"

. . . you could have realized that my quote was a BIG HINT to the actual law of the State of California. You see, these two interpretations go hand-in-hand with each other.

STOP RESPONDING TO CALIFORNIA THREADS!! YOU'RE MISLEADING THE CITIZENS OF MY STATE!!!

IAAL
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top