Common Law Marriage/Marriage

[LdiJ]

My response:

Options about what?

However, I will tell you this: If she didn't divorce her husband before marrying you, then she's a criminal (a "bigamist") and your marriage was invalid.

IAAL

WHOA IAAL, we don't know that they met the requirements for a common law marriage. There are requirement that must be met.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

WHOA IAAL, we don't know that they met the requirements for a common law marriage. There are requirement that must be met.

The three part test to prove a common law marriage in Texas was met by various facts contained in OP's posts, however the divorce has not been accomplished even though there was a separation. Here are the specific Texas laws, including the divorce from
http://www.co.travis.tx.us/dro/common_law.asp .
Q: What makes a common law marriage?

* A: Three elements must be present to form a common law marriage in Texas.

First, you must have "agreed to be married." (This was acknowledged by common law spouse)
Second, you must have "held yourselves out" as husband and wife. You must have represented to others that you were married to each other. As an example of this, you may have introduced you partner socially as "my husband," or you may have filed a joint income tax return. (Mail addressed to Mrs. X )
Third, you must have lived together in this state as husband and wife. (cohabitation and children and above qualify)

Q: How can I get out of a common law marriage?

A: Common law marriage may end in two ways. If there have been children or if property and debts remain undivided, you will want to seek a formal divorce. In a divorce, paternity, custody, support, and visitation can be determined, and debts and community property can be divided.

Under a new provision of the Family Code, either partner in a common law marriage has two years after you split up to file an action to prove that the marriage did exist. In order to fit into this provision, you must have separated after September 1, 1989.

Both partners in a common law marriage are responsible for debts and for care and support of children of the marriage. It is therefore urgent that you discuss the ending of this marriage with an attorney. You have a choice of methods, but they all require you to act within a certain length of time. However, even if the time has expired for you to obtain a divorce, other steps can be taken to get orders for payment of child support and visitation for children of the marriage.

 

[LdiJ]

Again, I am going to repeat this. In order for there to be a common law marriage certain, specific things had to have happened. Its not just a question that after living together for a certain amount of time you are considered "married" in states that recognize common law marriages.

Everyone is jumping on the bandwagon calling her a bigamist when the facts are not present to ascertain that a common law marriage did indeed exist. The OP certainly has enough info to be suspicious that it might have existed, but certainly not enough to be sure.

Also, unless one of the two people who might have been common law married "assert" that legally, I am not sure that the OP can go anywhere with that.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

Again, I am going to repeat this. In order for there to be a common law marriage certain, specific things had to have happened. Its not just a question that after living together for a certain amount of time you are considered "married" in states that recognize common law marriages.

Everyone is jumping on the bandwagon calling her a bigamist when the facts are not present to ascertain that a common law marriage did indeed exist. The OP certainly has enough info to be suspicious that it might have existed, but certainly not enough to be sure.

Also, unless one of the two people who might have been common law married "assert" that legally, I am not sure that the OP can go anywhere with that.

That was presented:
"The thing that made me start to realize this could be an issue is that after my wife left me...she began getting mail from the father of her other children. He addressed her utilitizing his last name and made comments to the fact they were married." Do you think I would go to the trouble of posting the 3 prong test for common law marriage in TX without also having the necessary elements or not pointing out which ones were missing?

 

[LdiJ]

The three part test to prove a common law marriage in Texas was met by various facts contained in OP's posts, however the divorce has not been accomplished even though there was a separation. Here are the specific Texas laws, including the divorce from
http://www.co.travis.tx.us/dro/common_law.asp .
Q: What makes a common law marriage?

* A: Three elements must be present to form a common law marriage in Texas.

First, you must have "agreed to be married." (This was acknowledged by common law spouse)
Second, you must have "held yourselves out" as husband and wife. You must have represented to others that you were married to each other. As an example of this, you may have introduced you partner socially as "my husband," or you may have filed a joint income tax return. (Mail addressed to Mrs. X )
Third, you must have lived together in this state as husband and wife. (cohabitation and children and above qualify)

Q: How can I get out of a common law marriage?

A: Common law marriage may end in two ways. If there have been children or if property and debts remain undivided, you will want to seek a formal divorce. In a divorce, paternity, custody, support, and visitation can be determined, and debts and community property can be divided.

Under a new provision of the Family Code, either partner in a common law marriage has two years after you split up to file an action to prove that the marriage did exist. In order to fit into this provision, you must have separated after September 1, 1989.

Both partners in a common law marriage are responsible for debts and for care and support of children of the marriage. It is therefore urgent that you discuss the ending of this marriage with an attorney. You have a choice of methods, but they all require you to act within a certain length of time. However, even if the time has expired for you to obtain a divorce, other steps can be taken to get orders for payment of child support and visitation for children of the marriage.

You and I were posting at the same time. I agree that there are elements in place that would give rise to the suspicion that they may in fact have been common law married. I do not agree that there are enough elements to PROVE that a common law marriage existed.

However its also clear that unless one of them brings an action to prove that the marriage existed (the two partners, not the OP and his spouse), that after two years it goes away by itself.

Therefore, unless the OP wants to try and "conspire" with his wife's former partner to attempt to get the former partner to bring legal action to have the common law marriage recognized, (and its still within two years of their breakup) I don't see where the possibility of a common law marriage benefits the OP.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

You and I were posting at the same time. I agree that there are elements in place that would give rise to the suspicion that they may in fact have been common law married. I do not agree that there are enough elements to PROVE that a common law marriage existed.

However its also clear that unless one of them brings an action to prove that the marriage existed (the two partners, not the OP and his spouse), that after two years it goes away by itself.

Therefore, unless the OP wants to try and "conspire" with his wife's former partner to attempt to get the former partner to bring legal action to have the common law marriage recognized, (and its still within two years of their breakup) I don't see where the possibility of a common law marriage benefits the OP.

According to TX law it need only require 1 reference to the marriage by either party to establish the common law marriage. They had considerably more.

If you noted the bold print, If there were children and there were, they must get divorced, it doesn't just go away.

Op doesn't have to conspire with the common law husband, he needs to file for annulment and all that follows from that related to this woman's bigamy and frauds.

 

[LdiJ]

According to TX law it need only require 1 reference to the marriage by either party to establish the common law marriage. They had considerably more.

If you noted the bold print, If there were children and there were, they must get divorced, it doesn't just go away.

Op doesn't have to conspire with the common law husband, he needs to file for annulment and all that follows from that related to this woman's bigamy and frauds.

Ihonestly think that you are misinterpreting that. It states that three elements have to apply, I believe that means ALL three elements must apply.

It also states that if you have children or property that you will want to get a divorce, not that you must.

In addition, in order for a common law marriage to be recognized one of the parties has to assert, in court, that the marriage exists/existed within two years of the split. It does not appear that either one of them have done that. It appears that more than two years have passed without either one of them doing that.

Again, I do not see how anyone on this board (including the OP) can in fact determine or prove that a common law marriage existed without the cooperation of the two people who alledgedly had a common law marriage.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

Ihonestly think that you are misinterpreting that. It states that three elements have to apply, I believe that means ALL three elements must apply.

It also states that if you have children or property that you will want to get a divorce, not that you must.

In addition, in order for a common law marriage to be recognized one of the parties has to assert, in court, that the marriage exists/existed within two years of the split. It does not appear that either one of them have done that. It appears that more than two years have passed without either one of them doing that.

Again, I do not see how anyone on this board (including the OP) can in fact determine or prove that a common law marriage existed without the cooperation of the two people who alledgedly had a common law marriage.

All three prongs were satisfied, I was merely clarifying that insofar as the ascertion of marriage, that prong, there are several ways, but insofar as claiming to be married, it only takes one reference whch was satisfied by the common law spouse addressing mail to Mrs. X.

The language was paraphrased, if there are children they need a divorce the other option doesn't apply.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

WHOA IAAL, we don't know that they met the requirements for a common law marriage. There are requirement that must be met.

My response:

Ldij, did you READ the OP's original post? Here it is again, just for you:

What is the name of your state? Florida

In my wife's previous relationship, she had 2 children and lived in a state that recognizes Common law marriage.

Since they moved back to Florida, it is my understanding the Common Law Marriage would still be recognized. I didn't understand any of this previous to my relationship with her.

Now, we married (legally) through the courts. She left before our one year anniversary.

We have been separated for a couple years but are in the process of divorce.

Can someone shed some legal light on my options?

Thanks.

Was there something in that post that makes you question that the writer DIDN'T know what he was talking about in terms of there BEING a common law marriage? Let me state it another way for you: The writer mentioned the phrase "common law" without asking any questions about it. He stated it as a fact. He only discovered the meaning of common law marriage AFTER he was married. He never asked IF she was married before the OP's and her marriage.

As a matter of fact, we can't tell from that post what the OP wanted. But, from the original post, one must presume that the writer knows his own relationship and has ALREADY established that his "wife" was ALREADY "common law" married. In other words, there was no issue presented as to whether a common law marriage "existed" or not.

You need to hone in on the issues - - if you can - - and based upon the writer's own words; not questioning the "fact of marriage" if the writer doesn't question the "fact of marriage" in the first place.

IAAL

 

[rmet4nzkx]

My response:

Ldij, did you READ the OP's original post? Here it is again, just for you:




Was there something in that post that makes you question that the writer DIDN'T know what he was talking about in terms of there BEING a common law marriage? Let me state it another way for you: The writer mentioned the phrase "common law" without asking any questions about it. He stated it as a fact. He only discovered the meaning of common law marriage AFTER he was married. He never asked IF she was married before the OP's and her marriage.

As a matter of fact, we can't tell from that post what the OP wanted. But, from the original post, one must presume that the writer knows his own relationship and has ALREADY established that his "wife" was ALREADY "common law" married. In other words, there was no issue presented as to whether a common law marriage "existed" or not.

You need to hone in on the issues - - if you can - - and based upon the writer's own words; not questioning the "fact of marriage" if the writer doesn't question the "fact of marriage" in the first place.

IAAL

Thank You IAAL, my forehead was begining to get raw from beating it against a brick wall.

 

[gatorguy3]

re: common law marriage/marriage

So the letter from the father of her other two children addressing her as his wife is proof enough? I guess I could also dig to see if they ever filed taxes as a married couple.

 

[LdiJ]

My response:

Ldij, did you READ the OP's original post? Here it is again, just for you:




Was there something in that post that makes you question that the writer DIDN'T know what he was talking about in terms of there BEING a common law marriage? Let me state it another way for you: The writer mentioned the phrase "common law" without asking any questions about it. He stated it as a fact. He only discovered the meaning of common law marriage AFTER he was married. He never asked IF she was married before the OP's and her marriage.

As a matter of fact, we can't tell from that post what the OP wanted. But, from the original post, one must presume that the writer knows his own relationship and has ALREADY established that his "wife" was ALREADY "common law" married. In other words, there was no issue presented as to whether a common law marriage "existed" or not.

You need to hone in on the issues - - if you can - - and based upon the writer's own words; not questioning the "fact of marriage" if the writer doesn't question the "fact of marriage" in the first place.

IAAL

IAAL I did read the original post. I did not interpret it the same way that you did. I did not interpret it that the OP had in fact already factually determined that she had a previous common law marriage. I interpreted it that he suspected the possibility of a common law marriage and hoped to use that to his advantage in HIS divorce.

Other than the former live-in writing her a letter using his last name and referring to her as "wife" (which the former live-in could have been doing to yank his chain as much as anything else), he did not refer to any other evidence other than the fact that they lived together and had children.

If everyone in Texas who lives together and has children are automatically considered to be married at common law, whether they assert that legally or not, then there are probably an awful lot of bigamists in TEXAS.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

So the letter from the father of her other two children addressing her as his wife is proof enough? I guess I could also dig to see if they ever filed taxes as a married couple.

My response:

I'll tell you what, GatorAid. Come back when you have all the facts, and all the documentation you think you'll need. Then come back and ask a coherent question.

We'll tired of playing "20 Questions" with you, and trying to figure out what you mean with your vague questions, and which "path" you're trying to take.

IAAL

 

[gatorguy3]

re: common law marriage/marriage

I'm sorry. I didn't realize in order to get "free advice" it involved my having all the answers already. How silly of me. Why would I need to ask questions if I had everything factual I would need?

If you are truly "tired of playing 20 questions" with me then you have the option to read and not reply or just simply don't read what I have to say or ask. I am genuinely trying to understand here.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

I'm sorry. I didn't realize in order to get "free advice" it involved my having all the answers already. How silly of me. Why would I need to ask questions if I had everything factual I would need?

If you are truly "tired of playing 20 questions" with me then you have the option to read and not reply or just simply don't read what I have to say or ask. I am genuinely trying to understand here.

My response:

Oh, brother . . . you're misinterpreting or you're simply not reading. Or, you're just being bullheaded. Is it really any wonder to you that she walked out on you before your anniversary? You can't even understand simple concepts.

Now, it's time for you to go away. I'm finding myself "beating my head against a brick wall."

IAAL