Legal advice not sure if it belongs in this section

[Bali Hai]

And that is entirely irrelevent and off topic.

I don't think so, sue me.

 

[LdiJ]

I don't think so, sue me.

Bali, it is completely unfair to the posters for you to state things that you know are not legally true. I realize that you don't care about that, but you are doing wrong to people who had nothing to do with what happened to you.

 

[Bali Hai]

Bali, it is completely unfair to the posters for you to state things that you know are not legally true. I realize that you don't care about that, but you are doing wrong to people who had nothing to do with what happened to you.

Society in general is responsible for the settlement of every divorce case. Giving OP the cold hard facts w/o sugar is not doing them wrong.

 

[CdwJava]

The man is owed for 12 years of devotion. The longevity of the romance (aka duration of the marriage) determines the monetary reward. The only thing OP is missing is a meaningless piece of paper.

There is a difference between what he might be owed from a moral standpoint, and what he might be owed from a legal standpoint.

Legally, what he can seek as compensation for a partnership of 12 years will depend upon the laws of his unnamed state. It could very well be that his state does not recognize any division of assets or funds after a 12 year relationship aside from those that were proven to be the sole ownership of one party or the other. His bad for not getting that "meaningless piece of paper" that would have granted him LEGAL rights to access the property.

If he did not want to get married, he should have then entered into a civil union or even a contractual relationship if there was any concern about assets. As it is, if the other half has sole title and registration of the vehicle and the house, his only recourse would be to make a claim for a share of these assets and go to court.

 

[CdwJava]

Society in general is responsible for the settlement of every divorce case. Giving OP the cold hard facts w/o sugar is not doing them wrong.

"Society" is not responsible for the settlement of every divorce case.

And giving the "cold hard facts" without any legal foundation can be misleading. Your "cold hard fact" that he is "owed" something from his relationship is largely incorrect. Unless the law says he is owed something, then he will have a hard time recouping what he is allegedly "owed."

 

[Bali Hai]

"Society" is not responsible for the settlement of every divorce case.

And giving the "cold hard facts" without any legal foundation can be misleading. Your "cold hard fact" that he is "owed" something from his relationship is largely incorrect. Unless the law says he is owed something, then he will have a hard time recouping what he is allegedly "owed."

Society enacted stupid alimony laws and gave a person unlimited power to order me to be a slave to someone else. I hold society responsible for that.

 

[ecmst12]

You are the ONLY person responsible for your marriage AND your divorce.

 

[Silverplum]

You are the ONLY person responsible for your marriage AND your divorce.

I disagree.

Mrs. Bali certainly played a part.

 

[CdwJava]

Society enacted stupid alimony laws and gave a person unlimited power to order me to be a slave to someone else. I hold society responsible for that.

No, "society" did not enact "stupid alimony laws." Your elected representatives (which, I suppose, are part of our collective society) enacted statutes, rules, and guidelines that give some foundation for alimony and support awards. It is not slavery to provide compensation to a former partner and to one's children. It may seem that the rules/laws are unfair at times, but that's not the fault of "society" at large. In fact, if we break down the common perceptions of societal values, I suspect that you would find that our society would prefer you remain married and thus there might be no need for alimony.

But, no matter your personal opinion on the matter, the LEGAL aspect of the division of these assets and support is what we need to try and concern ourselves with here. If you wish to address the philosophical underpinnings of alimony, support, obligation, etc., then I am sure you can find a great many web sites and forums out there with angry exes grumbling about the evils perpetrated against them at the hands of the "corrupt" Family Court system in this country.

 

[Bali Hai]

No, "society" did not enact "stupid alimony laws." Your elected representatives (which, I suppose, are part of our collective society) enacted statutes, rules, and guidelines that give some foundation for alimony and support awards. It is not slavery to provide compensation to a former partner and to one's children. It may seem that the rules/laws are unfair at times, but that's not the fault of "society" at large. In fact, if we break down the common perceptions of societal values, I suspect that you would find that our society would prefer you remain married and thus there might be no need for alimony.

But, no matter your personal opinion on the matter, the LEGAL aspect of the division of these assets and support is what we need to try and concern ourselves with here. If you wish to address the philosophical underpinnings of alimony, support, obligation, etc., then I am sure you can find a great many web sites and forums out there with angry exes grumbling about the evils perpetrated against them at the hands of the "corrupt" Family Court system in this country.

Ok, it was the government elected by the people (society) that was responsible for screwing me over.

One provides "compensation" to a current employee, not a former employee. Same goes for former spouse. Indentured servitude was outlawed in the 13th amendment.

 

[Zigner]

Ok, it was the government elected by the people (society) that was responsible for screwing me over.

Nope - it was your wife who did that. The wife you chose. So, by extension, you did it to yourself.

Seriously Bali - we all get it. You got burned.

 

[CdwJava]

Ok, it was the government elected by the people (society) that was responsible for screwing me over.

One provides "compensation" to a current employee, not a former employee. Same goes for former spouse. Indentured servitude was outlawed in the 13th amendment.

Then call it a "settlement:" as opposed to "compensation." Oh, and employers can and often are on the hook for former employees'.

And didn't you argue earlier that the OP deserved compensation for his many years of devotion? Why doesn't your spouse deserve the same?

But, this is neither here nor there. The law allows for alimony and child support, and in most states it does not allow such a claim when the couple is merely shacked up. However, normal civil claims can apply. The OP can go to small claims court and make a claim to property accumulated during their relationship and hope that he can make a valid claim to any of the property.

 

[Bali Hai]

Then call it a "settlement:" as opposed to "compensation." Oh, and employers can and often are on the hook for former employees'.

And didn't you argue earlier that the OP deserved compensation for his many years of devotion? Why doesn't your spouse deserve the same?

But, this is neither here nor there. The law allows for alimony and child support, and in most states it does not allow such a claim when the couple is merely shacked up. However, normal civil claims can apply. The OP can go to small claims court and make a claim to property accumulated during their relationship and hope that he can make a valid claim to any of the property.

I didn't argue earlier for anything. I merely stated what many here would have stated had the genders been reversed.

I'm aware that the law allows for alimony, and, I'm aware that more and more people are merely "shacked up" to avoid getting trapped by the ridiculous alimony laws that women have lobbied for.

Look, I'm not here to argue with anyone, especially a robot cop who belives that all laws should be enforced because it wouldn't be the law if it wasn't perfect. I'm here just to give my advice and people can take it or leave it. I'm not a legal expert, are you?

 

[Ladyback1]

since the OP hasn't provided his state, here's a list of states that recognize Common Law marriages. Each state has different requirements for a relationship to be considered as Common Law.

States Permitting Common Law Marriage

Alabama
Colorado
District of Columbia
Iowa
Kansas
Montana
Oklahoma
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Utah

States Permitting Certain Common Law Marriages

Georgia (if the elements were satisfied before January 1, 1997)
Idaho (if the elements were satisfied before January 1, 1996)
New Hampshire (for inheritance only)
Ohio (if the elements were satisfied before October 10, 1991)
Pennsylvania (if the elements were satisfied before January 1, 2005)

 

[I'mTheFather]

Did I miss where OP stated his/her gender?