"Common Law"

Petra · #1 09-06-2005, 12:22 AM

What fucking century are we in?

I'm reading reports of people missing or dead, and I've occassionally stumbled across the phrase "common law" wife/husband, etc.

Is this standard? Is it so others can go, "tut-tut, they were living in sin"?

Why can they just say "partner" or something? Crikey, I know people who are legally married who refer to their spouses as "partners"!

What's with this Victorian "common law" shite?

Ensign Steve · #2 09-06-2005, 12:35 AM

Pardon the pun, but common law marriages are pretty common in the US. At least they are in my redneck family (and I imagine in Louisiana and Mississippi as well).

wiki

It's actually a touch more formal than a "partner" because it is a legal marriage. The rights of hospital visits and property sharing and funeral whatnots apply the same as a regular marriage.

Petra · #3 09-06-2005, 12:39 AM

I haven't heard the term "common law" since I was a kid.

Even the term de facto is becoming less ...err... common, as people refer to each other as partners, now.

It just seems so Victorian to me!

Ensign Steve · #4 09-06-2005, 12:40 AM

Must be a regional thing, cuz "common law wife" sounds as natural to me as "wife", "girlfriend", "parner", or any other relationship. :shrug:

Petra · #5 09-06-2005, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ensign Steve

It's actually a touch more formal than a "partner" because it is a legal marriage. The rights of hospital visits and property sharing and funeral whatnots apply the same as a regular marriage.

Over here, if you live with someone for - I think it's 2 years - you have the same legal status as a 'regular' marriage.

Ensign Steve · #6 09-06-2005, 12:41 AM

2 years?! Yikes, that's hasty! Heehee. At 23 months, I'm going to start looking at mortgage rates.

Petra · #7 09-06-2005, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ensign Steve

Must be a regional thing, cuz "common law wife" sounds as natural to me as "wife", "girlfriend", "parner", or any other relationship. :shrug:

Must be a regional thing.

It just struck me as odd. Condescending, almost.

Petra · #8 09-06-2005, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ensign Steve

2 years?! Yikes, that's hasty! Heehee. At 23 months, I'm going to start looking at mortgage rates.

LOL. That's 2 years without any formal acknowledgemnt of being in a marriage - just living together in happy sin. heheh. After 2 years, you have all the rights of a more formal marriage.

lisarea · #9 09-06-2005, 02:05 AM

Common law marriage is only recognized by something like ten or a dozen US states, and each of those states recognizes it differently.

I suspect that, most of the time when people say people are common law married, it just means that they live together and are committed, but never made it legal.

I suspect people probably use that term instead of 'partner' because a partner could be something like a business partner. Or because it sounds kind of gay.

godfry n. glad · #10 09-06-2005, 04:27 AM

As lisarea mentioned, only a few states in the US recognize "common law" marriages. Mine is not one of them. Living together is living together. No other privileges accrue until marriage or adoption.

Louisiana's legal codes owe more to the Napoleonic Code than any other state in the union, as it was once the French administrative headquarters for the entire Louisiana Territory. I believe the "common law" marriage is more widespread in areas where the Napoleonic Code has had an influence.

I'm sure one of our legal beagles with straighten me out if I err.

JoeP · #11 09-06-2005, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

As lisarea mentioned, only a few states in the US recognize "common law" marriages. Mine is not one of them. Living together is living together. No other privileges accrue until marriage or adoption.

...

Adoption? Could you adopt your live-in lover? Or is there an age limit?

JoeP · #12 09-06-2005, 02:36 PM

South Africa has customary marriages which require a bit more than just having been together for 2 years, but recognise traditional i.e. indiginous African customs of marriage. Wikipedia doesn't have anything on them...

South Africa has common law and this apparently has a definition of marriage (which happens to be unconstitutional), but I don't see anything on "common law marriages" in terms of being recognised as married without some ceremony.

Stephen Maturin · #13 09-06-2005, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lunachick

Is this standard?

Not at all. A sizeable majority of state legislatures have done away with common law marriages.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lunachick

Is it so others can go, "tut-tut, they were living in sin"?

Others can say whatever they jolly well please, but a common law marriage has the same force and effect in the eyes of the law as a marriage in which the parties applied for a license, had the marriage solemnized by a statutorily-authorized person, etc. Parties to a common law marriage are bona fide husbands and wives.

Contrary to popular opinion, a couple need not live together for a certain amount of time for a common law marriage to exist. In Colorado, for example, you've got a common law marriage if the parties have the legal capacity to marry, agree to be married, hold themselves out as husband and wife, cohabit and are viewed as married by the community. If all five elements are present, you can form a common law marriage in very short order. On the other hand, if any of the elements is missing, no amount of cohabitation time will create such a marriage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lunachick

What's with this Victorian "common law" shite?

There's nothing inherently Victorian about that term. Common law simply means law made by judges. English common law predates Queen Vicky by hundreds of years. To cite but a couple of examples, big chunks of tort and contract law are still governed by common law rules.

viscousmemories · #14 09-06-2005, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Common law simply means law made by judges.

Activist judges if they're liberal, right?

D. Scarlatti · #15 09-06-2005, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

... viewed as married by the community.

Under CO's statutory scheme, this element appears to be internally inconsistent with C.R.S. 18-7-301.

Stephen Maturin · #16 09-06-2005, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

... viewed as married by the community.

Under CO's statutory scheme, this element appears to be internally inconsistent with C.R.S. 18-7-301.

Hahahahaha! Okay, okay, let's change "viewed as" to "considered."

JoeP · #17 09-06-2005, 04:33 PM

OMG. Lawyers' in-jokes.

godfry n. glad · #18 09-06-2005, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Quote:

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

... viewed as married by the community.

Under CO's statutory scheme, this element appears to be internally inconsistent with C.R.S. 18-7-301.

Hahahahaha! Okay, okay, let's change "viewed as" to "considered."

Either way, are they required to poll the community to determine that?

And what constitutes "the community"?

D. Scarlatti · #19 09-06-2005, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeP

OMG. Lawyers' in-jokes.

That's nothing. vm is making dead lawyer jokes.

viscousmemories · #20 09-06-2005, 04:57 PM

Wait. Johnny Cochran is dead? I really need to watch more TV or something.