The two were in a sexual relationship for ten years and have a child.
He gave her an absurdly expensive ring, although he claims it wasn’t an engagement ring. He certainly agreed to marry her a few years later, when she threatened to leave him otherwise.
Both of them admitted to having affairs during their time living together.
She dumped him as a result of the above.
She sued him for breach of promise, a law which makes it illegal for a man to call off an engagement (which he doesn’t actually seem to have done, rather she kicked him out).
Meh. Seems to have been resolved like an actual divorce: she quit her job to raise kids, they lived together as a couple for a decade, and he bought the house in his name. When they break up they each deserve their half of joint assets, which works out to be $50k because the house is worth nearly $100k. Everything else is just creative legal arguments and some grade-A asshattery.
At first sight, I thought for a moment that the thread was about the renowned Australian outlaw / folklore figure. From all that I’ve heard, getting dumped / sued were the least of his worries…
Same here (just listened to a great podcast on Ned, from Stuff You Missed In History Class).
When I’m in charge, nobody gets to name their kids after historical figures. So we’ll cut down on threads like “Winston Churchill and Gandhi caught running shoplifting ring” and “Sick of Mother Theresa soliciting on my street corner!”
If this pitting weren’t being done by an imbecilic MRA dude, the object of the pitting would be the state of Georgia, which lacks common-law marriage (according to the first article linked in the OP). What happens in this case is:
Couple lives together for 10 years and have a kid.
They agree that (the article suggests it was his idea, but we can’t know for sure) she’ll be a stay-at-home mom while he earns the paycheck.
They weren’t faithful to one another (although the details on his infidelity are made clearer).
He dumped her, contrary to the OP’s claim:
She sued for what amounted to half the value of the house that was in his name, since she’d spent the last many years raising their child (or children, depending on whether you want to go purely biological or count them as a family).
The last part is most interesting. She used a law that shouldn’t exist in order to gain satisfaction that she couldn’t gain from a nonexistent law that should exist. How is this unjust?
But no…this is clearly a case in which a poor little cheating man is unable to kick his partner and child out of his house in order to set up with a new love interest, and woe is him.
He’s a jerk for insisting she be a stay-at-home mother without making her his stay-at-home wife.
And she’s a fool for putting herself in that situation. I could see rolling with the arrangement for a couple of years. But for a decade? Not smart at all.
Maybe the experience will make both a little wiser.
They were common-law spouses according to most jursidictions, and each partner should be entitled to half the assets gained during their time together. The end result seems just to me.
But what LHoD says: the headlines are pretty misleading. The issue isn’t really “breaking off an engagement”, its just the usual issues of dividing assets after a divorce. Except since Georgia doesn’t have common-law marriage, the courts end up covering basically the same thing using fraud claims.
Did they hold themselves out as husband and wife? That’s always been an element of common law marriage in the (nowhere near most) jurisdictions that recognize it. It certainly doesn’t sound like it; in fact, it sounds like they studiously avoided the term marriage.
The reality is that this is just an extention of the so-called “palimony” doctrine which seeks to impose the burdens of divorce on relationships that have elected not to seek the benefits of marriage.
Expect blindboyard to crawl away, and not return to this thread now that his propaganda has been exposed, like he’s repeatedly done elsewhere with his other misogynistic posts.
Nonsense. They found a way to divide the labor in their relationship for ten years. When their relationship soured, he tried to walk away from it keeping all the material benefits of their decade of partnership, due to a quirk in our property laws. She used a quirk in another law to keep him from doing this.
He got major benefits from the relationship, benefits traditionally associated with marriage. There’s no reason he ought to keep all their property as well.
The “quirk” in the property law is that if something is titled in your name, it’s yours? There was no reason they could not have shared title to things. But they didn’t.
These things can be examined as a contract issue, maybe; “if you provide me with domestic duties and sex, I will provide you with money.” But 1) you’re simply wrong on the common law marriage point and 2) it seem absurd to me that we can impose on people the detriments of marriage (i.e., the division of property in divorce) against their will. (That’s why common law marriage is fairly complicated; you’re not supposed to accidentally end up married).
(All of this is separate from the child support issue, which, of course, he has to pay).
There was a reason why she could not have shared title to things: he didn’t let her. And yes, it’s a quirk in the law that domestic labor accrues no legal claim to wealth: it flies in the face of John Locke’s treatise on government and his assertion that mixing labor with goods creates ownership.
No, I’m not wrong on the common law marriage point, as persuasive as the word “simply” is in your post. Nice try, though.
Sure you are. Common law marriage always requires two things (in addition to cohabitation): 1) the intent to be married and 2) holding yourself out as husband-and-wife. That’s true in every state the recognizes common-law marriage; it was true in Georgia before it abolished it (although Georgia sort of combined the two by viewing “holding your self out” as evidence of intent to marry… but they seem to have a stronger requirement of an actual marriage agreement). The article strongly suggests that this element is missing here. Therefore, it simplywasn’t a common law marriage as ever previously understood. What you want is seperate category, somewhere between “married” and “unmarried,” that imposes the burdens of marriage on couples that do not marry. I mean, at least construct this as a run-of-the-mill contract for domestic labor and sexual services in exchange for an interest in the house. Except that if I pay a nanny (or maid) with room and board and spending money, we don’t generally assume that she has a claim on the title to my home, even if I sleep with her.