I was reading a thread in GD that was debating the validity of “common-law” marriage. One point often mentioned in association with the topic was cohabitation as a feature of such a union.
I’ve since been trying to find out through Google if cohabitation is a requirement for being considered legally married, specifically in California, though the take from other states and countries would be interesting as well. The only information I was able to find regarding the legal definition of marriage was in regards to the recent spate of same-sex marriage news, and didn’t address the issue of sharing a household.
I ask because my spouse and I have made the decision in the last few years to remain married and exclusive, and yet live in different houses. If someone decided to, could a case be made that we aren’t really married, as we don’t cohabitate? If it makes a difference, we live very close to each other and see each other daily. While it’s convenient to remain married, it’s not a marriage of convenience.
As to whether you are married or not, who cares. I don’t mean that to be nasty, just asking since who would get upset with what you’re doing and object?
I don’t expect that anyone will raise an objection. I just wonder if anyone would have a case if they did decide to object. It’s more a matter of curiosity than it is a point of worry for me.
In short, once a marriage is recognized, living apart does not dissolve it or nullify the rights and obligations inherent to marriage. California does not recognize common law marriages, so if you aren’t legally married then you just are not married whether you live together for 40 years.
"In fifteen states and the District of Columbia (see below), though, common law marriages are recognized. If a man and a woman (same-sex marriages aren’t recognized) live together and “intend to be married” by acting like they are married, telling people they are married, and doing the things married people do (using words like “husband” and “wife,” filing joint tax returns, etc.), they become common law spouses. This gives them the same rights and responsibilities as people who got married the old-fashioned way, with a trip to City Hall and a wedding.
Common law marriage isn’t something to do lightly. If you become married by common law and later decide you want to end your relationship, you still have to have a standard, legal divorce. In this way, common law marriages are very similar to regular marriages: they’re usually easier to get into than to get out of.
There’s no simple test to see if a couple qualifies as being common law married, and the only time the question usually arises is in court. If, after death or separation, one partner claims there was a common law marriage and wants the benefits of marriage, the court would consider many factors to determine if there was truly intent to be married. Since the seven-years-to-automatic-marriage idea is only a myth, determining whether a common law marriage existed can be complicated. Some lawyers recommend that couples write, sign, and date a simple statement that says they do or do not intend to be married, to offer protection should the question ever arise.
If you create a common law marriage in one of the states below and later move to a state that does not recognize common law marriage, your marriage can technically still exist. All marriages, common law or otherwise, are recognized by all states, regardless of where they were created (the debate about legalizing same-sex marriage gets tricky here, since technically, a lesbian marriage created in whatever state legalizes it first should be recognized by all other states).
Few of us live in places too rural to be married these days, and fairy dust is scarce. In the U.S. today, common law marriages are more common in myth than in reality.
States That Recognize Common Law Marriage
Alabama
Colorado
District of Columbia
Georgia (if created before 1/97)
Idaho (if created before 1/96)
Iowa
Kansas
Montana
New Hampshire (for inheritance purposes only)
Ohio (if created before 10/91)
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania (if created before 9/03)
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Utah
If you were ever married, then you’re married until you divorce, or one of you dies. You don’t stop being married just because, in the eyes of some people (or even in the eyes of everybody) you don’t act like a married couple “should”.
So, assuming you cohabited at one stage, then you’re still married.
So what’s “cohabitation”? Normally it means sharing a common home in the context of a conjugal relationship. IANACalfornianL so I don’t know what role “cohabitation” plays in the context of Californian marriage law, or what it is considered to mean in that context. But my guess would be that, if it is an essential requirement for marriage in California, the bar will be set pretty low. Basically, if a couple who have had a marriage ceremony sleep a night in a house which is the home of at least one of them, my guess would be that that would be a sufficient “cohabitation” to validate their marriage.
It’s possible, depending on the source that you’re looking at, that “cohabitation” is a euphemism for having sex. In many jurisdictions, if a couple go through a marriage ceremony but never have sex afterwards, the marriage is liable to be annulled on the petition of either of them for non-consummation. This would be an annulment, not a divorce, and if mealy-mouthed people prefer to say “cohabit” than “have sex” I can see how the confusion could arise that cohabitation in the common home sense is an essential requirement of Californian marriage.
[sup]But you gotta admit its different[/sup]
[sup]One other consideration is “have you consummated the relationship?”[/sup]