Beware Marvin Actions

[Prefer Peace to PieceParticipant 10809]

I’m not a lawyer, but I have seen a few friends go through Palimony/Cohabitation nightmares.

Palimony/Cohabitation I think deals with a Marvin Action.

A Marvin Action is an action filed in civil court, not family law court that is made by one party against another party he or she cohabitated with but never married, for support and/or property rights.

A Marvin Action is based on an express contact or on an implied contract.

Civil courts may enforce an implied or express contract between parties to pool their resources. In this situation, the cohabitant may end up having rights similar to those of a spouse in a divorce proceeding.

Civil courts may recognize an implied agreement to hold property jointly.

Civil courts may include an action for the reasonable value of services rendered.

So even if you were never married, a cohabitant may be found to have certain rights similar to those held by a spouse following a divorce.

In other words, it’s my understanding that living in a state that does not recognize common law marriage does not necessarily get you off the hook. Women can still go after you in Civil Court.
(Any lawyers on Mgtow?)

For any men crazy enough to get involved in cohabitation, please do more research into Marvin Actions and how to defend against them.

On of my friends lived with a woman and got hit with a Marvin Action for “value of services rendered”.

Either escorts or ? Robots are looking better.

[RoyDalParticipant]

@Prefer Peace to Piece

I believe you are correct. I have a distant recollection of this happening to some famous Hollywood types they called it “palimony.” Some places have “common law” marriage, meaning if you live with her long enough, then you’re married! You may kiss the new bride; smile for the camera!

A search on “palimony” turns up this definition:

palimony
n. a substitute for alimony in cases in which the couple were not married but lived together for a long period and then terminated their relationship. The key issue is whether there was an agreement that one partner would support the other in return for the second making a home and performing other domestic duties beyond sexual pleasures. Written palimony contracts are rare, but the courts have found “implied” contracts, when a woman has given up her career, has managed the household, or assisted in the man’s business for a lengthy period of time. In the past 20 years palimony suits have proliferated, particularly against movie stars and wealthy businessmen, but the earliest was the famous California case of Sarah Althea Hill v. Senator William Sharon in the 1880s (she lost). The line between a mutual “affair” and a relationship warranting palimony is a difficult one which must be decided on a case by case basis. Palimony suits may be avoided by contracts written prior to or during the relationship.
— palimony. (n.d.) TheFreeDictionary.com. (2015). Retrieved September 21 2015 from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/palimony

And, this site: http://www.palimony.com/ by a law firm which specializes in such things. It looks like a way for an enterprising young lawyer to have a long and prosperous career.

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

[Anonymous 29]

In Australia, if you cohabit with another person for more than six months, you are automatically considered as a couple in law. Therefore for all intents and purposes if s~~~ hits the fan, watch your back.

[BurgundyParticipant 1525]

Damn didn’t know that law went as low to 6 months only being needed.

Glad I’m several years over LTR, I wouldn’t be surprised to see this get lowered even further, until it simply requires sex between two parties, and the woman can immediately file for property ownership/payment for her “services”.

There is seemingly no limit for their crazy.

[ILiveAgainParticipant]

Knowledge is power …. and this is a perfect example.

Arm yourself gentleman.

[Robert HallamParticipant 696]

Yeah. There is a move here in British Columbia to reduce the time period from two years to six months. In fact the courts are unofficially using it as a guideline.

Pretty soon a Common Law Marriage will be defined as being involved in French Kissing and Fingering.

[XSDBSParticipant 3598]

One trick I was made aware of is delivering her mail to your address.
DO NOT allow her to use your address as her mail address.
She will not even ask, her mail will just start showing up.
Write “Not At This Address” on any mail that has her name/your address, and put in an outgoing mailbox.

[OldBillParticipant]

Burgundy wrote:

Damn didn’t know that law went as low to 6 months only being needed.

The minimum time requirement can be even lower depending on the jurisdiction. As I pointed out in the All Women Are Rapists thread, before being abolished Idaho’s common law marriage minimum time requirement there was 72 hours. Rhode Island’s statute dealing with common law has no minimum time requirement. All that is required is serious intent and marriage-like conduct by both parties.

Glad I’m several years over LTR, I wouldn’t be surprised to see this get lowered even further, until it simply requires sex between two parties, and the woman can immediately file for property ownership/payment for her “services”.

These efforts to turn the clock back and reimpose common law marriage statutes are little more than a Fugitive Slave Act for the 21st Century. Increasingly men are escaping from the plantation taking their labor and assets with them. It’s only natural that feminists will, along with their allies in government, want to recapture and re-enslave those men if only for the “good of the children”.

As I warned in the other thread, many US states abolished common law marriage during the 20th Century for various social engineering reasons. It’s only logical that the same states will reestablish common law marriage for different social engineering reasons in the 21st Century.

There is seemingly no limit for their crazy.

Dashiell Hammett once wrote “If at first you don’t understand a situation, follow the money” The reappearance of common law marriage and palimony is nothing but another money grab by women.

Do not date. Do not impregnate. Do not co-habitate. Above all, do not marry. Reclaim and never again surrender your personal sovereignty.

[PhantomParticipant 3328]

XSDBS wrote:

Write “Not At This Address” on any mail that has her name/your address, and put in an outgoing mailbox.

Woah. That, along with all the other knowledge here. Are we gonna have to have locking mailboxes next? Sheesh?

[sidecarParticipant 35837]

So far as I am aware, the three “No”s of Going Your Own Way are:

No marriage. No procreation. NO COHABITATION.

It’s in there for a reason.

[Author]

Posts