Comments on: Co Habitation and the Common Law https://www.ourthoughts.ca/2008/08/24/co-habitation-and-the-common-law/ Thought-provoking commentary on life, politics, religion and social issues. Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:03:27 +0000 hourly 1 By: ltbugaf https://www.ourthoughts.ca/2008/08/24/co-habitation-and-the-common-law/comment-page-1/#comment-84275 Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:03:27 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/?p=1491#comment-84275 Wizard, there is a difference, and it’s this: The FLDS man is taking responsibility for the women and their children, to the point of trying to place an official blessing on that responsibility in the eyes of his church and his government. His conduct is vastly more honorable than that of the serial fornicator you’ve described.

]]> By: ltbugaf https://www.ourthoughts.ca/2008/08/24/co-habitation-and-the-common-law/comment-page-1/#comment-84273 Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:01:33 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/?p=1491#comment-84273 The public policy exception should take care of this, as far as I know. I doubt there’s a single state or province that wouldn’t declare its public policy strongly against bigamy and refuse to give any common-law imprimatur to such a relationship.

]]> By: Wizard https://www.ourthoughts.ca/2008/08/24/co-habitation-and-the-common-law/comment-page-1/#comment-74752 Mon, 08 Sep 2008 15:05:57 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/?p=1491#comment-74752 If a man has at least three girlfriends and he has children by all of them, is that really any different than what the FLDS do?

]]> By: Larry https://www.ourthoughts.ca/2008/08/24/co-habitation-and-the-common-law/comment-page-1/#comment-74001 Fri, 05 Sep 2008 04:44:24 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/?p=1491#comment-74001 This one is really tricky, because when the act was first passed in Alberta, anyone co-habitating for a certain period of time (I believe it was 3 years), even 2 friends who are single and just sharing an apartment, would have legal rights over property ahead of family members if one were to die intestate. I believe this has been modified, but I haven’t checked the act for about 3 years now.

]]> By: Katie https://www.ourthoughts.ca/2008/08/24/co-habitation-and-the-common-law/comment-page-1/#comment-72336 Thu, 28 Aug 2008 03:28:43 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/?p=1491#comment-72336 Interesting. I am not sure about college dorm roommates, but in terms of the FLDS and multiple “wives” I can see how there would be some sort of legal right, especially if there is shared property and children.

A family friend is related to George Q. Cannon and during the time of his polygamy, my friend told me a story about one of his wives. Apparantly she had started a lot of the businesses during their marriage. When the marriage was dissolved, she had said something like, “I will return to you what you put into the marriage” and gave him a coin or something. She retained all the legal rights on the businesses. Sorry about the spelling errors. It is a little late on my end.

]]> By: rick https://www.ourthoughts.ca/2008/08/24/co-habitation-and-the-common-law/comment-page-1/#comment-72045 Tue, 26 Aug 2008 20:42:53 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/?p=1491#comment-72045 Yeah, we’ve got this nifty little feature aspect of the law called interdependent adults – which accomplishes the common law marriage rights without the act of declaring marriage. So I’m still not sure what that means…

]]> By: JimD https://www.ourthoughts.ca/2008/08/24/co-habitation-and-the-common-law/comment-page-1/#comment-71849 Mon, 25 Aug 2008 23:19:26 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/?p=1491#comment-71849 Not sure how it’s done in Canada, but in the US most common-law statutes (in the states that recognize them) require not only “cohabitation” (a term of art generally denoting a sexual relationship), but also that the couple “hold themselves out to be husband and wife” before the public.

]]>