[martin1975]

there's a lawyer filing a case soon for a woman that lived with her fiance for over 10 years...never married, and they had a quid pro quo sexual relationship...she paid most bills, no rent though, and lived/appeared as if married to him everywhere, but were not in fact married. The lawyer pursuing it says this type of case is almost always ruled in favor of 'common law' marriage. She got shafted by him for another woman and was left out in the cold w/out any money after having spent a considerable amount of her own time and money w/this POS. Now she's suing and will win half the increase of the house he owns and they lived in. I'll let you know of the disposition of the case.

So yes, he/she consented to common law marriage.

This is from a lawyer. Are you a lawyer by chance?

[JadeNB]

> This is from a lawyer. Are you a lawyer by chance?

I am not, and my legal source on this matter is Wikipedia, so, well, there you go.

However, I do note that there is a difference between a lawyer making an argument, and the content of that argument being established law. If the case is decided in the woman's favour (and if it is in a California jurisdiction!), then obviously I am wrong; but, until then, I don't think that it is so clear that I am.

[martin1975]

Great, I'm glad you're open to listening. I will update you on the disposition if you bother to read this thread a few months from now.

[true_religion]

They met two out of four of the tests for common law marriage. So what are you saying? We should be surprised that cohabitating couples who have a reputation of being married are common law married?

[martin1975]

Maybe you didn't read what I said, since I am in agreement with you.