From: Rod Speed on
� Jeem � wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote
>> � Jeem � wrote
>>> Balvenieman <balvenieman(a)invalid.net> wrote
>>>> Dave C. <noway(a)nohow.never> wrote

>>>>> If you are living with someone long enough, he becomes your common law husband.

>>>> Strictly speaking that simply is not the case in most, if not all,
>>>> jurisdictions in the U.S.A. A narrow set of conditions must prevail
>>>> in order for a judge (the only person who can do so) to declare
>>>> persons to be "common law" spouses. "Common law" spouse just as
>>>> "fianc�" is, in common parlance, simply PCSpeak for "cohabitant",
>>>> "live-in" or "shackup".

>>>> In my view, OP's most constructive and civilized course of action
>>>> is to butt out and let her sister live her own life in return for
>>>> the same respect and regard.

>>> Only a handful of states recognize Common Law Marriage:

>>> http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=4265

>> Heaps more do recognise defacto relationships.

> De facto relationship is just another term used in Australia
> and New Zealand for Common Law Marriage in the US.

Wrong. Even in the US, shacking up isnt identical to Common Law Marriage.

>>> If the OP's sister resides in the majority of states which do not
>>> recognize Common Law Marriage, then she has the right to allow her
>>> BF to stay or tell him to leave, if his name is not on the deed to the home.

>> Utterly mangled all over again. It isnt even that simple with shared houses.

> Utterly mangled? Crystal clear to me.

Says he ignoring shared houses.


From: � Jeem � on
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:26:41 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>� Jeem � wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote
>>> � Jeem � wrote
>>>> Balvenieman <balvenieman(a)invalid.net> wrote
>>>>> Dave C. <noway(a)nohow.never> wrote
>
>>>>>> If you are living with someone long enough, he becomes your common law husband.
>
>>>>> Strictly speaking that simply is not the case in most, if not all,
>>>>> jurisdictions in the U.S.A. A narrow set of conditions must prevail
>>>>> in order for a judge (the only person who can do so) to declare
>>>>> persons to be "common law" spouses. "Common law" spouse just as
>>>>> "fianc�" is, in common parlance, simply PCSpeak for "cohabitant",
>>>>> "live-in" or "shackup".
>
>>>>> In my view, OP's most constructive and civilized course of action
>>>>> is to butt out and let her sister live her own life in return for
>>>>> the same respect and regard.
>
>>>> Only a handful of states recognize Common Law Marriage:
>
>>>> http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=4265
>
>>> Heaps more do recognise defacto relationships.
>
>> De facto relationship is just another term used in Australia
>> and New Zealand for Common Law Marriage in the US.
>
>Wrong. Even in the US, shacking up isnt identical to Common Law Marriage.

You are correct. Shacking up is not identical to Common Law Marriage
in the US. States differ on their definition of Common Law Marriage.
But in OPs case, that is where the difference between a husband and a
BF is relevant. As a husband, he would have more rights in the
situation than opposed to being a BF.
>
>>>> If the OP's sister resides in the majority of states which do not
>>>> recognize Common Law Marriage, then she has the right to allow her
>>>> BF to stay or tell him to leave, if his name is not on the deed to the home.
>
>>> Utterly mangled all over again. It isnt even that simple with shared houses.
>
>> Utterly mangled? Crystal clear to me.
>
>Says he ignoring shared houses.

Actually, I don't even know if the OP is in the US. There is alot of
evidence in the headers that it may be originating from Germany (.de).
But I'm more inclined to think she is in the US.
>
From: Marsha on
Dave C. wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 22:03:27 -0400
> Marsha <mas(a)xeb.net> wrote:
>
>> Dave C. wrote:
>>> If you do call the cops, don't mention his behavior. That will cloud the issue and the cops likely won't give a damn. Just complain that he's trespassing. KISS principle applies. She owns the house, she wants him to leave, he won't leave, he's trespassing. Cops will respond to that, as it's less of a domestic issue and more of a black/white legal issue. He's breaking the law, the cops will handle it. -Dave
>> That makes sense - just let him hang himself, which he would. He
>> doesn't respect authority, so I can picture him yelling at the cops and
>> making no sense at all. I just hope she can follow through and break
>> free from this jackass.
>>
>> Marsha
>
>
> Y'know, I shouldn't mention this, but someone should probably speak up and say something.
>
> This situation, as you describe it, has all the earmarks of a future headline news story. You know, the kind where the reporters talk to the neighbors, who invariably remark, "She was such a nice person...I just don't understand how anybody could DO that to her..." (wiping tears away)
>
> I wish I was joking. -Dave

Yeah, I wish you were, too. Unfortunately, I have had the same morbid
thoughts...

Marsha
From: Marsha on
� Jeem � wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 23:59:35 -0500, Balvenieman
> <balvenieman(a)invalid.net> wrote:
>
>> "Dave C." <noway(a)nohow.never> wrote:
>>
>>> If you are living with someone long enough, he becomes your common law husband.
>> Strictly speaking that simply is not the case in most, if not all,
>> jurisdictions in the U.S.A. A narrow set of conditions must prevail in
>> order for a judge (the only person who can do so) to declare persons to
>> be "common law" spouses. "Common law" spouse just as "fianc�" is, in
>> common parlance, simply PCSpeak for "cohabitant", "live-in" or
>> "shackup".
>> In my view, OP's most constructive and civilized course of action
>> is to butt out and let her sister live her own life in return for the
>> same respect and regard.
>
> Only a handful of states recognize Common Law Marriage:
>
> http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=4265
>
> If the OP's sister resides in the majority of states which do not
> recognize Common Law Marriage, then she has the right to allow her BF
> to stay or tell him to leave, if his name is not on the deed to the
> home.
>

According to that website, she doesn't qualify for common law marriage.

Marsha
From: Rod Speed on
� Jeem � wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote
>> � Jeem � wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote
>>>> � Jeem � wrote
>>>>> Balvenieman <balvenieman(a)invalid.net> wrote
>>>>>> Dave C. <noway(a)nohow.never> wrote

>>>>>>> If you are living with someone long enough, he becomes your common law husband.

>>>>>> Strictly speaking that simply is not the case in most, if not
>>>>>> all, jurisdictions in the U.S.A. A narrow set of conditions must
>>>>>> prevail in order for a judge (the only person who can do so) to
>>>>>> declare persons to be "common law" spouses. "Common law"
>>>>>> spouse just as "fianc�" is, in common parlance, simply
>>>>>> PCSpeak for "cohabitant", "live-in" or "shackup".

>>>>>> In my view, OP's most constructive and civilized course
>>>>>> of action is to butt out and let her sister live her own life
>>>>>> in return for the same respect and regard.

>>>>> Only a handful of states recognize Common Law Marriage:

>>>>> http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=4265

>>>> Heaps more do recognise defacto relationships.

>>> De facto relationship is just another term used in Australia
>>> and New Zealand for Common Law Marriage in the US.

>> Wrong. Even in the US, shacking up isnt identical to Common Law Marriage.

> You are correct. Shacking up is not identical to Common Law Marriage
> in the US. States differ on their definition of Common Law Marriage.

But dont differ on what constitutes shacking up, the situation actually being discussed.

> But in OPs case, that is where the difference between a husband and a BF is relevant.

Yes, but whether its a common law marraige or not isnt.

> As a husband, he would have more rights in the situation than opposed to being a BF.

But someone she shacked up with doesnt necessarily have no rights at all in most US jurisdictions.

>>>>> If the OP's sister resides in the majority of states which do not recognize
>>>>> Common Law Marriage, then she has the right to allow her BF to stay or
>>>>> tell him to leave, if his name is not on the deed to the home.

>>>> Utterly mangled all over again. It isnt even that simple with shared houses.

>>> Utterly mangled? Crystal clear to me.

>> Says he ignoring shared houses.

> Actually, I don't even know if the OP is in the US.

Sure, but it is likely given where the OP is posting from
and her comments about having been verbally abused
by the individual that her sister is trying to get rid of.

> There is alot of evidence in the headers that it may be originating from Germany (.de).

Thats just where the news server is.

> But I'm more inclined to think she is in the US.

She does appear to have confirmed that now with the comment that common
law marraige does not apply given what you posted about US states.