Is there spousal support for ex girlfriends?

[dumpedinoregon]

Oregon

After dating for 9.5 years, including 8 years of co-habitation, my boyfriend has decided to leave our relationship because he no longer wishes to plan a future life with me. During our time together, both marriage and children were mutual goals and often discussed and all finances were shared. We purchased a home together 5.5 years ago but it is only in his name as he earns $90K+ to my $40K.

While dating, I put hours of sweat equity into the home while my boyfriend did nothing to improve the value of our home. I was also responsible for the management of our finances, including budgeting, saving and the payment of all monthly bills. Now, I will be forced to leave my home and start completely over, losing my home and my lifestyle. To complicate my life further, days before the breakup, I was laid off from my job of 12 years and am now unemployed.

I would like to know if even though we were not legally married and Oregon is not a common-law marriage state, if I am entitled to any spousal support, even if only to establish my new life?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[Proserpina]

Oregon

After dating for 9.5 years, including 8 years of co-habitation, my boyfriend has decided to leave our relationship because he no longer wishes to plan a future life with me. During our time together, both marriage and children were mutual goals and often discussed and all finances were shared. We purchased a home together 5.5 years ago but it is only in his name as he earns $90K+ to my $40K.

While dating, I put hours of sweat equity into the home while my boyfriend did nothing to improve the value of our home. I was also responsible for the management of our finances, including budgeting, saving and the payment of all monthly bills. Now, I will be forced to leave my home and start completely over, losing my home and my lifestyle. To complicate my life further, days before the breakup, I was laid off from my job of 12 years and am now unemployed.

I would like to know if even though we were not legally married and Oregon is not a common-law marriage state, if I am entitled to any spousal support, even if only to establish my new life?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

Short answer: No.

If you wanted the benefits of marriage (and subsequent divorce), you needed to have been married.

 

[Antigone*]

Oregon

After dating for 9.5 years, including 8 years of co-habitation, my boyfriend has decided to leave our relationship because he no longer wishes to plan a future life with me. During our time together, both marriage and children were mutual goals and often discussed and all finances were shared. We purchased a home together 5.5 years ago but it is only in his name as he earns $90K+ to my $40K.

While dating, I put hours of sweat equity into the home while my boyfriend did nothing to improve the value of our home. I was also responsible for the management of our finances, including budgeting, saving and the payment of all monthly bills. Now, I will be forced to leave my home and start completely over, losing my home and my lifestyle. To complicate my life further, days before the breakup, I was laid off from my job of 12 years and am now unemployed.

I would like to know if even though we were not legally married and Oregon is not a common-law marriage state, if I am entitled to any spousal support, even if only to establish my new life?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

Why on earth you decided to play house and let him hold all the cards is beyond me.

 

[Bali Hai]

Why on earth you decided to play house and let him hold all the cards is beyond me.

That's correct. Nobody was stopping her from landing a $90k job. If they bought the house "together", then she would be responsible for 1/2 the mortgage payments and had her name put on the title when "they" bought it.

I seriously doubt she put anything more than her "sweat" into the place and b/f made the payments. People don't get to live "free" anyplace or get someone else to support you unless there's a marriage contract.

Hats off to b/f.

 

[Antigone*]

That's correct. Nobody was stopping her from landing a $90k job. If they bought the house "together", then she would be responsible for 1/2 the mortgage payments and had her name put on the title when "they" bought it.

I seriously doubt she put anything more than her "sweat" into the place and b/f made the payments. People don't get to live "free" anyplace or get someone else to support you unless there's a marriage contract.

Hats off to b/f.

Bali ~ I knew you'd be saying that ~ and I don't have the FA crystal ball today.

 

[Bali Hai]

Bali ~ I knew you'd be saying that ~ and I don't have the FA crystal ball today.

She was legally nothing more than a tenant and she should have realized this.

 

[stealth2]

At the end of the day, Spousal Support is for a (former) *spouse*. Which OP is not. OP is a (former) girlfriend. Girlfriend =! Spouse. Silly girlfriend.

 

[CreativeBlock]

Please do not take this as arguing, but I searched online and found something that may be to the contrary. However, I'm not that bright this morning, and would appreciate it if others could assist in the interpretation!

"It has been argued that by granting palimony claims, dividing property of unmarried cohabitants, and treating them economically as if they were a marriage unit, the law weakens the economic incentive to marry, and and create an economic incentive for a competing relationship that undermines the marriage-based family. These concerns are offset to some extent by concerns that failure to allow recovery of "palimony" will result in unjust enrichment to the economically well-off nonmarital partner (usually male) and provide him with an economic incentive not to marry, if the unmarried cohabitant is not allowed contract recovery. Prevention of unjust enrichment is the core policy behind the movement allowing palimony actions. As the Oregon Supreme Court explained in Latham vs Latham, 547P.2d 144, 147 (1976): "The application of the principle that such a contract will not be enforced has often resulted in the male keeping the assets that accumulated in the relationship and the female being deprived of what she has accumulated." Enforcement of reasonable expectations and performance of freely-made bargains is second policy used to justify palimony. As the Oregon Supreme Court explained in Beal vs Beal, 577 P2d 507 (Ore. 1978): "In summary, we hold that courts, when dealing with the property disputes of a man and a woman who have been living together in a nonmarital domestic relationship ...."

(Emphasis mine, as I thought it might be relevant and the text too dry to otherwise (perhaps) wade through)

That is where the "preview" ends. Its from a book on Family Law from GoogleBooks. The next page isn't available and I can't find cites to the two cases mentioned ~ which would, I think, be helpful in figuring out (at least, for me) what the HELL it all means.

Fundamental principles of family law - Google Books

Again, I'm not trying to be argumentative.

 

[nextwife]

The good news is that you can walk away from any debts that do not have your name on them.

I hope you, at minimum have been aggressively investing into 401ks and Iras. Which even we spouses should be doing. Unmarried women REALLY need to do this.

 

[Ohiogal]

Please do not take this as arguing, but I searched online and found something that may be to the contrary. However, I'm not that bright this morning, and would appreciate it if others could assist in the interpretation!



(Emphasis mine, as I thought it might be relevant and the text too dry to otherwise (perhaps) wade through)

That is where the "preview" ends. Its from a book on Family Law from GoogleBooks. The next page isn't available and I can't find cites to the two cases mentioned ~ which would, I think, be helpful in figuring out (at least, for me) what the HELL it all means.

Fundamental principles of family law - Google Books

Again, I'm not trying to be argumentative.

YOu bolded the wrong portion. Bold the portion regarding CONTRACTS. He didn't promise to support her if something happened between them. he didn't state contract with her that she would get part of the house. They had not combined finances. She would have to find that he promised lifelong support and he promised to compensate her for what she put into the home. And that they were more than just cohabitating.
See Marvin v. Marvin in California.

 

[Bali Hai]

Please do not take this as arguing, but I searched online and found something that may be to the contrary. However, I'm not that bright this morning, and would appreciate it if others could assist in the interpretation!



(Emphasis mine, as I thought it might be relevant and the text too dry to otherwise (perhaps) wade through)

That is where the "preview" ends. Its from a book on Family Law from GoogleBooks. The next page isn't available and I can't find cites to the two cases mentioned ~ which would, I think, be helpful in figuring out (at least, for me) what the HELL it all means.

Fundamental principles of family law - Google Books

Again, I'm not trying to be argumentative.

That book appears to be written by feminists. Otherwise the "usually male" referred to as the ones becoming "unjustly enriched" from the relationship would have been left out.

She is entitled to her property accummulated over the course of the relationship, nobody disputes that. Why should she be entitled to any more than that? I just don't get it. It goes back to women who actually believe they are doing men a favor by being in a relationship with them and should be paid when the relationship is over.

It appears that the people who authored that book, also authored the present alimony laws.

 

[CreativeBlock]

That book appears to be written by feminists. Otherwise the "usually male" referred to as the ones becoming "unjustly enriched" from the relationship would have been left out.

With all due respect, and I'm not attempting a venture into the world of sexism, I think women have more often than not been the gender left in the cold when a relationship deteriorates (mainly, I would venture, because men, as is the same today, made higher wages than women). Which I would aver, is the reason alimony came into existence.

After all, there was a time when women could not even own property. So, archaic? Probably. But valid at a time in our past? Certainly.

She is entitled to her property accummulated over the course of the relationship, nobody disputes that. Why should she be entitled to any more than that? I just don't get it. It goes back to women who actually believe they are doing men a favor by being in a relationship with them and should be paid when the relationship is over.

It could be my personal bias, but I disagree. I know of no woman who would ever feel that way. In the few instances where I've known women who sought alimony, it was simply to make sure that she had time to get a job and begin taking care of her and their children.

However, my perception may be skewed. ATM our best friend is being utterly siphoned by his *wife* (due to his religious beliefs, he's not wont to be the first to file for divorce, unfortunately). And we are scared to death for him, knowing that she will attempt to get every penny he has. She's even resorted to siphoning their daughter's trust and college fund. :/

But to be honest, if the OP were a man asking the same question, I would have cited the same source. I would never base my participation or response on gender.

 

[Bali Hai]

With all due respect, and I'm not attempting a venture into the world of sexism, I think women have more often than not been the gender left in the cold when a relationship deteriorates (mainly, I would venture, because men, as is the same today, made higher wages than women). Which I would aver, is the reason alimony came into existence.

Women have more legal protection to getting jobs than men do. Don't blame the man and make him pay because the woman chose not to pursue a better job. People are paid what they are WORTH in most cases and it has nothing to do with male or female. If you want top pay, then you have to be a top PERFOMER.

After all, there was a time when women could not even own property. So, archaic? Probably. But valid at a time in our past? Certainly.



It could be my personal bias, but I disagree. I know of no woman who would ever feel that way. In the few instances where I've known women who sought alimony, it was simply to make sure that she had time to get a job and begin taking care of her and their children.

However, my perception may be skewed. ATM our best friend is being utterly siphoned by his *wife* (due to his religious beliefs, he's not wont to be the first to file for divorce, unfortunately). And we are scared to death for him, knowing that she will attempt to get every penny he has. She's even resorted to siphoning their daughter's trust and college fund. :/

But to be honest, if the OP were a man asking the same question, I would have cited the same source. I would never base my participation or response on gender.

Seems that the feminists are still at it trying to get men to pay their way. Since men are wising up and not marrying, they are dreaming up more laws to screw us over.

 

[mistoffolees]

It could be my personal bias, but I disagree. I know of no woman who would ever feel that way. In the few instances where I've known women who sought alimony, it was simply to make sure that she had time to get a job and begin taking care of her and their children.

Then you mostly know honorable people. My ex sees alimony as a way to get what she is 'entitled to'.

 

[CreativeBlock]

Then you mostly know honorable people. My ex sees alimony as a way to get what she is 'entitled to'.

At risk of sounding pompous, I would have to agree. Our best friend's wife *used* to be a friend. But once she began acting entitled (not to mention displaying fits of cruelty and insulting her hubby even in front of their child, much less total strangers), she was no longer a friend.

Life's too damned short to surround oneself with people you can't empathize with. And someone who thinks their entitled simply for gracing another with their presence is not someone I can empathize with. :/