Article about Common Law Marriage

[TaxGuyParticipant]

http://www.npr.org/2016/09/04/487825901/no-you-re-not-in-a-common-law-marriage-after-7-years-of-dating

What a misleading title. The title says no you are not in a common law marriage, and then goes on to describe all the ways the courts can screw you over if you live with a woman.

The one particular case they follow is pretty interesting. Spoiler alert, the woman sues the guy and she wins.

So she sues and wins and gets vagimoni. But, don’t worry, you’re not in a common law marriage. You’ll just have to pay like you were married.

Order the good wine

[Anonymous 54]

There is no need to ever live with a woman. Live alone, with your dog.Happy life awaits!

[Blue SkiesParticipant 15665]

common law marriage is the second biggest scam in history.

the biggest scam is the marriage contract.

MGTOW is not a movement, it is a way of life.

[FrostByteParticipant 19005]

I sleep alone. All by myself. Because when I sleep alone, I prefer to be by myself…..

If you rescue a damsel in distress, all you will get is a distressed damsel.

[RoyDalParticipant]

Anonymous wrote:

There is no need to ever live with a woman. Live alone, with your dog.Happy life awaits!

Yep!

Society asks MGTOWs: Why are you not making more tax-slaves?

[Robert HallamParticipant 696]

I presume the writer of the article is from the US but here in Canada any “marriage like relationship” is equivalent to being married in the eyes of the law. In fact, the notion that if you live together for two years, constitutes Common Law marriage is changing and changing fast. In many jurisdictions it’s down to one year and here in British Columbia they are pushing for 6 months. The courts are already ahead of the legislation.

The trend to move away from marriage, to escape the liabilities and consequences, is matched by the trend to reword legislation to ensure it encompasses more and more men, and traps them into paying. The courts will find any way they can to keep single mothers off the welfare roles, and that means getting men to pay.

[SimpleLifeParticipant 439]

Damn. It’s treacherous out there. I fear for my son.

[GrumpyParticipant]

Robert Hallam wrote:

I presume the writer of the article is from the US but here in Canada any “marriage like relationship” is equivalent to being married in the eyes of the law.

It gets worse in Canada, especially in Ontario, if you financially assist her in any way, as in pay her rent, a bill, or buy her groceries once, it establishes a “dependent” relationship. You can now be held liable for her financial well being.

Nothing like a girlfriend potentially getting alimony is there. (no that is not a question)

There was a time in my life when I gave a fuck. Now you have to pay ME for it

[Chaff/FlareParticipant 3235]

SimpleLife wrote:

Damn. It’s treacherous out there. I fear for my son.

I’m trying really hard right now how to provide armor. It’s a tough one my brother, you don’t want to transfer bitterness.

When you find yourself in the majority, it's time to reflect.

[sidecarParticipant 35837]

ALWAYS at her place. Never at yours.

Don’t even let her know your address if you can at all help it.

[Robert HallamParticipant 696]

Hey Grumpy. Terrifying ain’t it. And don’t strike up a friendship with the kids of a single mother. I kid you not, there is now precedence of guys having to pay child support for kids that the guy only met through a date with a single mother and maybe bought a Christmas present for.

You guys laugh. Believe me their is a real covert movement out there to pick one guy off after another. Quiet and not newsworthy and under the radar.

[CatsPawParticipant 423]

Best part:
“It’s not so clear”

There’s no formula or algorithm for determining a common-law marriage, and that can be confusing for courts.
Um, yes there is, its called marriage contract.

If I dont want to be married I am not married. If I want to be I am.
I am so happy I burned my sexual desires years ago. I hope females enjoy the corner they backed themselves into.

[AsceticmonkParticipant 846]

every relationship with women i’ve ever had has either ended badly, with me heartbroken, or both.

stopped dating 3 years ago.

thank God i finally learned.

[WraithParticipant 242]

Grumpy wrote:

It gets worse in Canada, especially in Ontario, if you financially assist her in any way, as in pay her rent, a bill, or buy her groceries once, it establishes a “dependent” relationship. You can now be held liable for her financial well being.

I’m sorry to hear it’s that drastic there. I expect common law marriage to expand elsewhere, especially as more men opt out and women’s complaints about it get louder.

[Robert HallamParticipant 696]

Wraith My Man

Yeah guys will opt out of marriage and wrongly assume that they are safe from child support for kids that aren’t theirs and vagimoney for a dwindling amount of crappy pussy. Little do they realize that Common Law is no different than marriage. The courts will find a way, in fact they will bend over backwards, to squeeze him for every cent they can get. Listen to what Grumpy said. Any possible excuse to show that you as the man, initiated a dependency like relationship, and you are f~~~ed. Oh, So you helped her mow the lawn and put up some drapes. Bought her kid a Christmas Present and took him to Disney World. Well Guy. You can’t just end that relationship you started. That’s traumatising.

[Won'tGetFooledAgainParticipant 3293]

In Australia they have the term “Defacto Parter” which is basically anyone you have lived with for more than two years as a couple. Defacto status means you are essentially married and have the same rights as a legally married couple.

This is from the Australian Government website :

“The de facto property regime brings property and spousal maintenance matters for separating de facto couples within the federal family law regime under the Family Law Act 1975.

It applies to couples in all Australian states and territories except Western Australia.

This means that separating de facto couples in most states and territories can access the Family Law Courts for property and spousal maintenance matters.”

Property and spousal maintenance matters, can you imagine having to give a bitch half your property and spousal maintenance when you are not even married to her!!!

Robert Hallam wrote:

Wraith My Man
Listen to what Grumpy said. Any possible excuse to show that you as the man, initiated a dependency like relationship, and you are f~~~ed. Oh, So you helped her mow the lawn and put up some drapes. Bought her kid a Christmas Present and took him to Disney World. Well Guy. You can’t just end that relationship you started. That’s traumatising.

Remember, no good deed goes unpunished. Can you imagine giving a homeless guy ten dollars and a court saying you have to now give him ten dollars a day for the rest of his life as you initiated a dependency?

Why is that any different?

For women, everything eventually boils down to Alpha Fucks, Beta Bucks.

[narwhalParticipant]

Regarding child support for kids that aren’t yours, one important question to ask is if the father is involved with the kids life and if she is currently receiving child support. One kid cannot receive CS from 2 different father’s. As well, this established that there where kids are with Dad, and she is theoretically available.

I know many here advise not to date single mom’s, but if you do, do not meet the kids. Do not let her meet your kids.

Regarding common law, I do think there needs to be some sort of co-habitation laws on the books. It’s really not a matter of dependency, but of insuring that property is properly divided when co-habitation ends. I’ve heard of roommate situations where the person who owns the property kicks out the other and does not allow access to retrieve belongings. Maybe that already exists and I just don’t know of it.

Speaking of rental agreements, would that be a way of preventing common law marriage from coming into play? Say a GF moves in, and you have her sign a rental agreement (or vice versa), wouldn’t that supersede an common law marriage. You wouldn’t even really have to charge rent, just establish the legal relationship before the government can assume a relationship.

Ok. Then do it.

[Author]

Posts