For discussions? I don't. For some sort of "proof" yeah that'd make sense.

Luckily for you, if you click the wiki link you'll see the sources right by the description of each state's provisions. Should you feel the need to do the research all over again, it's right there.


Oh and MysticCat, hence my inclusion of sources. I wasn't saying that the previous poster wasn't in a common law marriage, just replying that it wasn't automatic. Also, I put "and/or", not wiki. Those provisions are listed in some combination in each state's rules. And while legally it's different, "intent" to marry and portraying/considering yourself married are very similar.

Wikipedia is a bad place to be doing legal research -- just FYI :)

Also, burden of proof is something I don't think Wiki talks about. It probably varies from state to state as well. This is no small matter because the difference between "by a preponderance of the evidence" and "by clear and convincing evidence" is vast. In Oklahoma, it is the later. I'm not sure what it is anywhere else. Also, keep in mind that none of those factors is individually dispositive. While you might have some proof to all of them, you still may fail to meet your evidentiary burden.

To date, I've helped prepare three common law marriage cases. To date, I've never seen a common law marriage proved.

While things might be clear now, imagine how unclear things might become when there are hundreds of thousands of dollars in assets/debt to allocate. Memories become very hazy and can often lead parties to attempt to mislead the court at this point. You can begin to see how difficult it can be to prove the existence of all of these things by clear and convincing evidence.

-- but then, the burden might be different from state to state.

Great.

I doubt she's going to be bringing a Wiki page to court with her, or drafting up a will using a Wiki guide.

;)

And I can think of better sites to use for quick facts for the sake of discussion.

Lol, hence why I'm not a lawyer. Seriously it was just a comment, I'm not emotionally invested in the rules behind common law marriage and I'm not going to findlaw.com to look up the rules for each state.

Please share, I enjoy learning new resources. And I'm not being sarcastic here. You seem to enter conversations for the sake of making only meta comments, and I'd like to actually see what you're referring to if you have something better.

I just heard a story about a couple from my hometown and that's exactly what happened to them. They were married without a prenup and it's getting pretty ugly. Makes you stop and think, that's for sure.

Just FTR, um no...I wouldn't rely on wiki for anything other than to look up inane things. :)

Are you being sarcastic here or just attaching this too far up your ass?

Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gotcha on the "and/or."

And while agree that "'intent' to marry and portraying/considering yourself married are very similar," are similar, the fact is that different states will ask the question differently. Some states will ask "did they intend to form a marriage?" Others will ask "did they hold themselves out as husband and wife?" (Or they will consider an affirmative answer to the second question as adequate proof of intent.) With the first question, intent must be proved by the party claiming a common law marriage, and intent can be a tricky thing to prove' it's usually proved by actions consistent with that intent. With the second question, intent per se does not have to proved. Rather, the question that must be proved is the much easier standard of representations.

But getting to the core of what I think you were getting at, you're right that simply cohabitating cannot result in a common law marriage anywhere.

Neither. You've jumped in several times saying what you don't like, not about the topic, but about the way the topic's being discussed. And I'm asking for your suggestions on what other sites are good resources since you don't like the ones being used. I'm not saying I'll use them, but I'm open to new ideas.

For the sake of my own entertainment...
 

Carry on.

Indeed, that is all I was attempting to say initially. And the intent was just one specific example in what I learned in my class. That was one requirement the professor (a lawyer) included in her summary.

I see I'm going to have to change to a bulk order of these... http://www.signals.com/signals/Item_...1G_ps_srm.html
:)