Living together 12 yrs. any legal rights?

[cybor9]

What is the name of your state?

Florida


Scenario..... a women lives with a man for over 12 years. She gives him her paycheck every week. They pay half of all the bills, even groceries. The house, which I believe is in his name, goes from a 2 bedroom 1 bath to a 3 bedroom 2 bath over the years. The women has contributed money toward material for the house and also time to help remodel. There is also custody of a dog in question.

My question is this, knowing Florida doesn't recognize Common Law marriages...... does she have any legal rights to anything in the event they split up?

Thankyou.

 

[HomeGuru]

What is the name of your state?

Florida


Scenario..... a women lives with a man for over 12 years. She gives him her paycheck every week. They pay half of all the bills, even groceries. The house, which I believe is in his name, goes from a 2 bedroom 1 bath to a 3 bedroom 2 bath over the years. The women has contributed money toward material for the house and also time to help remodel. There is also custody of a dog in question.

My question is this, knowing Florida doesn't recognize Common Law marriages...... does she have any legal rights to anything in the event they split up?

Thankyou.

**A: she could sue for an equitable interest in the property. And to split the dog in half.

 

[cybor9]

Re: Re: Living together 12 yrs. any legal rights?

**A: she could sue for an equitable interest in the property. And to split the dog in half.

poor pup.......

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

Probably not. Marital laws have a purpose in our society, set up with protections for both parties. Without marriage, there are probably no protections or rights.

However, if the woman was able to prove a "breach of contract"; e.g., his "promise to take care of her", then she might be able to "hit him" from that angle. In California, we have what is called a "Marvin vs. Marvin" (1976) 18 Cal.3d 660, 680, 134 Cal.Rptr. 815, breach of contract action that can be used between live-in lovers of many years.

"Action for breach of express contract (e.g., to pool earnings and hold acquisitions in accord with community property law, or to hold earnings and acquisitions as separate property; to provide support, etc.)."

"[Cohabitants] may also acquire enforceable rights to share in each other's earnings and accumulations by express or implied agreement; and courts may invoke a variety of "equitable" remedies to protect the parties' "reasonable" and "lawful expectations" regarding the pooling and sharing of property and earnings." Marvin, supra.

The plaintiff would have to prove that such a contract existed, which really is difficult to prove. But, it's worth a shot.

IAAL

 

[cybor9]

Thankyou for your response, I'll have to get with this women and get more info from her about any agreement they might have had. I think I will talk with an attorney once I get more info.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

Thankyou for your response, I'll have to get with this women and get more info from her about any agreement they might have had. I think I will talk with an attorney once I get more info.

My response:

Two very good ideas.

IAAL

 

[nextwife]

Contributing toward upgrades of a property does not, in itself, give one any ownership rights. Otherwise, every tenant that pays toward a property via rent and also upgrades that property could claim entitlement to increased equity that their CHOICE to put money into someone elses place created for that owner.

One improves their living environment because it improves their "quality of life". They get greater enjoyment of the home they live in. If they chose to make such improvements to another persons property, whether a tenant, or a roomate, or a live-in SO, it is generally not expected that they will recover these costs.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

Contributing toward upgrades of a property does not, in itself, give one any ownership rights. Otherwise, every tenant that pays toward a property via rent and also upgrades that property could claim entitlement to increased equity that their CHOICE to put money into someone elses place created for that owner.

My response:

So true. However, you may have missed the point, Nextwife. We're not talking about a landlord/tenant situation here. We're talking about "cohabitants" to a singular property. And, the "purpose" of the relationship was not one of landlord/tenant; rather, it appears that the relationship was a "meaningful" relationship akin to a marriage - - without the rights of married persons. In fact, such a relationship may have been "contractual" in nature; e.g., "If you stay, I promise to take care of you, house you and feed you." If that's the case, then there may, in fact, be a contractual equitable interest in the relationship - - a la "Marvin", assuming that Florida recognizes such "contractual" relationships like California does.

Therefore, both parties to this "contract" may, in fact, have an equitable interest in everything during the relationship, including the house and all personal property contained in the house - - along with all bank accounts, cars, jewelry, etc.

IAAL

 

[nextwife]

I understand your point. I freely admit to being confused why one may be entitled to the benefits but not the obligations of a marriage, when one chooses not to enter into a marriage.

Tell me, does such an arrangement also create the equiviant of a marital obligation to debts as well? Could the co-inhabitant freely walk from this relationship with no financial obligation to any creditors the improvements created, as there is no marriage, thus no marital debt? Doesn't the lack of a marriage, common law or otherwise, provide the co-inhabitant a scenario with NO legal obligations to stay or pay, unless they are actually co-borrower?

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

I understand your point.

Tell me, does such an arrangement also create the equiviant of a marital obligation to debts as well? Could the co-inhabitant freely walk from this relationship with no financial obligation to any creditors the improvements created, as there is no marriage, thus no marital debt? Doesn't the lack of a marriage, common law or otherwise, provide the co-inhabitant a scenario with NO legal obligations to stay or pay, unless they are actually co-borrower? I freely admit to being confused why one may be entitled to the benefits but not the obligations of a marriage, when one chooses not to enter into a marriage.

My response:

Assuming that a "contractual relationship" is proved, then in a Separate Property State (such as Florida) and even in a Community Property State (such as California) the entire "res" of the relationship is divided on a "equitable distribution" basis - - which includes assets as well as liabilities.

Sure, one of the parties can merely walk away - - but, that person walks away with all debts that are soley in that one person's name.

Remember, if a cohabitation contract can be proved, the contract cannot be "unilateral" to the point of causing one of the parties to bear the burden of the liabilities alone. The "equities" of the relationship, vis-a-viz the contract, would require "bilateral" liability for all debts as well as an equitable share of the assets.

In other words, proving the existence of a contractual relationship can have its good points, as well as its "downside" - - or stated another way, "you can't have your cake and eat it too."

The equities of such a contractual relationship would demand a "share and share alike" outcome.

If you read "Marvin", you'll understand better how the equities of Lee Marvin's ownership of everything would have left Michelle Triola "Marvin" out in the cold without anything - - even though she contributed heavily to their relationship; i.e., he promised to take care of her for the rest of her life if she gave up her acting and singing career - - which she did. She would have been penniless but for the agreement they had. She won big time, and poor old Lee Marvin had to pay her "through the nose".

IAAL

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

Read "Marvin vs. Marvin" at the link below. Mathew Tobriner, Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court rendered the decision in 1976. It's still good law, today. It's also an extremely interesting "read".

Copy and paste this link into your browser without the on each side: [url]http://www.scu.edu/law/FacWebPage/Neustadter/e-books/abridged/main/cases/Marvin.html

IAAL

 

[nextwife]

Thank you.

Good to know that one can't claim only the advantageous part.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

Thank you.

Good to know that one can't claim only the advantageous part.

My response:

Well, that's a healthy view of the situation insofar as California is concerned. So, yes, it's "good to know". However, it is "California law" and every State doesn't have a similar law.

As a matter of fact, in some States, the "Marvin" approach to failed cohabitation relationships has been tried, and rejected by those State courts. Some States take the marital bond, and marital "contract" quite a bit more seriously than does California.

Some States view the "Marvin" situation as an attempt to abrogate (do an "end run" around) the marriage laws of those other States - - and those courts take a dim view of people who try to use an "end run" to go around State laws that were enacted to protect certain types of relationships; i.e., a marriage.

So, what might work in California, may not work in another State. And, it takes gobs of money to change laws, especially on a "new theory" such as a "contractual relationship" versus a "marital relationship".

IAAL

 

[nextwife]

Ah, yes, CA is sometimes different. I always figured that if I wanted the legal protections marriage brings, then I shouldn't expect it unless I married.

I mean, I wouldn't buy a house on a verbal contract, or accept an auto warranty that was no more than a verbal promise. One's lifemate is a decision of so much greater impact and magnitude, why would I accept less of a "contract" and legal commitment with that than I would if when getting a freezer from Sears?