From: � Jeem � on
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:23:00 -0400, Marsha <mas(a)xeb.net> wrote:

>� 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

Then the BF is just a BF. Nothing more. No sense even discussing
Common Law Marriage any longer since they do not reside in a state
where it is recognized. I do honestly wish the best for your sister.
No woman (or person for that matter) should be subjected to abuse of
any form. Because he is probably bipolar does not excuse him for his
verbal and emotional abuse. She deserves better than him and the
sooner he is out of her life, the better off she will be.
From: � Jeem � on

>>>>>> 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.
>

I'm glad that we have agreed on some of the dynamics of the situation
and also despite our disagreements, we did not allow our emotions to
control our thinking (i.e. flame wars). But I am not aware of any
rights as a BF that he may have aside from retaining his personal
possessions. He did not pay any rent to her nor did he pay his part of
the living expenses from what I have read. It was through her
generosity that he lived there rent free because she was romantically
involved with him. He lived there rent free which is a privilege, not
a right. I do not see how he can have any rights except for the
aforementioned right to retain his personal possessions. Perhaps you
can elaborate on what other rights the BF may have?
From: Rod Speed on
� Jeem � wrote:

>>>>>>> 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.

> I'm glad that we have agreed on some of the dynamics of the situation
> and also despite our disagreements, we did not allow our emotions to
> control our thinking (i.e. flame wars). But I am not aware of any rights
> as a BF that he may have aside from retaining his personal possessions.

Surely you must realise that someone who has shacked up with someone
else for years has more rights than that in plenty of US jurisdictions ?

In spades if he is now mentally ill.

> He did not pay any rent to her nor did he pay his part of the living
> expenses from what I have read. It was through her generosity that
> he lived there rent free because she was romantically involved with him.

He did however do some stuff that 'Marsha' claims he has undone now.

> He lived there rent free which is a privilege, not a right.

No one said anything about rights.

> I do not see how he can have any rights except for the
> aforementioned right to retain his personal possessions.

He does anyway in quite a few US jurisdictions.

> Perhaps you can elaborate on what other rights the BF may have?

Read up on palimony sometime.


From: � Jeem � on
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:36:29 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote:


>> He did not pay any rent to her nor did he pay his part of the living
>> expenses from what I have read. It was through her generosity that
>> he lived there rent free because she was romantically involved with him.
>
>He did however do some stuff that 'Marsha' claims he has undone now.
>
>> He lived there rent free which is a privilege, not a right.
>
>No one said anything about rights.
>
>> I do not see how he can have any rights except for the
>> aforementioned right to retain his personal possessions.
>
>He does anyway in quite a few US jurisdictions.
>
>> Perhaps you can elaborate on what other rights the BF may have?
>
>Read up on palimony sometime.

Palimony laws vary state to state.
>
From: � Jeem � on
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 16:14:54 -0400, Marsha <mas(a)xeb.net> wrote:

>My milktoast sister does plan on consulting an attorney finally, but
>does anyone know what she has to do to get rid of a roommate
>(boyfriend)? She owns the home outright. He's a verbal abuser and
>plays mind games, like hiding her jewelry and undoing a couple small
>improvements he's made to her home. She owns the home outright. He has
>never paid anywhere near an equal share of the bills. I'm thinking she
>may have to formally give him 30 days notice and then just evict him,
>probably with the help of some law enforcement.
>
>Marsha

You know, Marsha, I think a very effective way of your sister getting
her BF out of the house is to cheat on him. I mean have a short-term
affair and don't even try to hide it. Let herself get caught, like
letting him "accidentally" see a love letter in her email or witness
her kissing holding hands with another guy. If her infidelity will not
get him out of the house, I do not know what would.