4 ms·

> California is not a common law state. My apologies, you're absolutely correct. I have no idea why I thought CA was common law. Probably after the divorce I g

by vecinu 5y ago

> California is not a common law state. My apologies, you're absolutely correct. I have no idea why I thought CA was common law. Probably after the divorce I got bombarded with information and it was all soup in my brain. > I’m proposing avoiding the legal contracts that will not do you any good. It's only an issue if you have kids and/or plan to immigrate to a different country. Being married helps there.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> I have no idea why I thought CA was common law. My guess is that it isa conflation of “community property” with “common law”, as both relate to marriage and are similar enough in name that it is easy to swap them in memory. Also, community property is the one more relevant to what happens in divorce, while common law is about formation of marriage.
- vecinu 5y ago
  You're right, that's where I got confused. Since I was married, everything was considered community property, so it's good to know California doesn't enforce community property on non-married couples, since it doesn't recognize common law marriages.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Since I was married, everything was considered community property Whether this is true (in the absence of a prenup, etc.) depends on record keeping and where (and particularly when) your assets come from; the somewhat oversimplified version is that a ssets (and debts) acquired between the beginning of marriage and separation that are not gifts or inheritances specifically intended for one or the other of the spouses are community property by default, those acquired before marriage or after separation (even before divorce) are separate property.
bradlys 5y ago
Marriage for kids isn't necessary. You can prove you're a parent and that you have a legal right to your child even if you are unmarried. I've known plenty of couples who had kids without being married and it wasn't an issue. The immigration part is more difficult but you can get married temporarily for the purposes of immigration unless you're specifically moving to that place to live there forever. I've known people who have done this and it is clearly very feasible. They got legally divorced after. However - I am assuming that both people in a relationship are going to be working and therefore this is a not a problem. If one is not going to be working then that adds a layer of complexity. Marriage law at that point is weird. Personally - I'm tailoring my advice for the overwhelming majority of people - not the one-off weird scenarios that most Americans are not going to be dealing with. 60%+ of people in the USA don't even have a passport. And they definitely aren't thinking of leaving permanently - lol.
- vecinu 5y ago
  Right, I actually was in the exact situation you describe in the middle, moving to a new country with a non-working spouse, so marriage was a requirement and there was no way she would have come with me if I asked her to divorce after. That's ludicrous. I see your overarching point though.
  - novok 5y ago
    For me an my partner, we don't like the idea of the government regulating our relationship, and many years later, we still don't like the idea of it too. There is a difference between the relationship and the government paperwork. Similarly you would couch it to your spouse the same way. If you both treat it like the corporation paperwork it is (and if you think about how the government treats it, it's actually similar to a business partnership structure in many ways), then getting paperwork married and then paperwork divorced as planned doesn't have to be an issue.

by vecinu 5y ago

dragonwriter 5y ago

> I have no idea why I thought CA was common law. My guess is that it isa conflation of “community property” with “common law”, as both relate to marriage and are similar enough in name that it is easy to swap them in memory. Also, community property is the one more relevant to what happens in divorce, while common law is about formation of marriage.

vecinu 5y ago
You're right, that's where I got confused. Since I was married, everything was considered community property, so it's good to know California doesn't enforce community property on non-married couples, since it doesn't recognize common law marriages.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Since I was married, everything was considered community property Whether this is true (in the absence of a prenup, etc.) depends on record keeping and where (and particularly when) your assets come from; the somewhat oversimplified version is that a ssets (and debts) acquired between the beginning of marriage and separation that are not gifts or inheritances specifically intended for one or the other of the spouses are community property by default, those acquired before marriage or after separation (even before divorce) are separate property.

bradlys 5y ago

Marriage for kids isn't necessary. You can prove you're a parent and that you have a legal right to your child even if you are unmarried. I've known plenty of couples who had kids without being married and it wasn't an issue. The immigration part is more difficult but you can get married temporarily for the purposes of immigration unless you're specifically moving to that place to live there forever. I've known people who have done this and it is clearly very feasible. They got legally divorced after. However - I am assuming that both people in a relationship are going to be working and therefore this is a not a problem. If one is not going to be working then that adds a layer of complexity. Marriage law at that point is weird. Personally - I'm tailoring my advice for the overwhelming majority of people - not the one-off weird scenarios that most Americans are not going to be dealing with. 60%+ of people in the USA don't even have a passport. And they definitely aren't thinking of leaving permanently - lol.

vecinu 5y ago
Right, I actually was in the exact situation you describe in the middle, moving to a new country with a non-working spouse, so marriage was a requirement and there was no way she would have come with me if I asked her to divorce after. That's ludicrous. I see your overarching point though.
- novok 5y ago
  For me an my partner, we don't like the idea of the government regulating our relationship, and many years later, we still don't like the idea of it too. There is a difference between the relationship and the government paperwork. Similarly you would couch it to your spouse the same way. If you both treat it like the corporation paperwork it is (and if you think about how the government treats it, it's actually similar to a business partnership structure in many ways), then getting paperwork married and then paperwork divorced as planned doesn't have to be an issue.