You have to have some degree of proof, but it is true in 10 states including Texas. <i>Texas calls it an "informal marriage," rather than a common-law marriage. Under ยง 2.401 of the Texas Family Code, an informal marriage can be established either by declaration (registering at the county courthouse without having a ceremony), or by meeting a 3-prong test showing evidence of (1) an agreement to be married; (2) cohabitation in Texas; and (3) representation to others that the parties are married. A 1995 update adds an evidentiary presumption that there was no marriage if no suit for proof of marriage is filed within two years of the date the parties separated and ceased living together.</i> http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/commonlaw.htm
If the cheater is a mother, she gets the house...Of course, I would argue for an immediate sale, but those proceeds will be split 50/50 and will distrupt the childs comfort zone... Common law sux...Note to self, don't let the b*tches move in...
Good show for pointing that out. Keep property owned before marriage separate from the rest of your financial dealings, and you should be all right. (you can still be screwed, but the advice is still good)
Where do ya'll get this? That is not always the case. The court will not award a house to somebody who is unable to pay the note on it. If she can show the court that she can service the mortgage, then most likely. Contrary to what people think, this is not one size fits all jurisprudence.
Refman, didn't you know? It's ALWAYS the lying, cheating w**** wife that gets everything she stole from her poor, duped husband.
Oh yeah...I forgot. I think that there is a lot of misinformation floating around out there. I know that there is with my pracice area...bankruptcy. I spend most of my time debunking bad information.
I think a lot of us deal with this, regardless of practice area. I know I spent more than a few good hours of my life debunking bad info about criminal law and punishment ranges while I was a prosecutor. Now that I'm in a corporate environment, not so much. But sometimes I read posts with bad info that just BEGS to be addressed but I refrain most of the time just so I won't find myself checking and re-checking the thread the whole damn evening to see if I need to rebut anything.
That's not just the case with the legal world. Hell, just read the GARM for a couple days and you can figure that out.
Truth or Myth? If you charge something on a non-store credit card and you declare bankruptcy, they cannot repossess any items. If you charge something on a store card, technically they have a lien on your property and may legally take back the items.
As for non-store cards, generally true. As for store cards, you have to look at the underlying credit contract. It will spell out whether or not they have a security interest.
i certainly didn't mean to imply that it would mean one side gets everything and the other side gets nothing. i was merely pointing out that it factors in.
