| Articles This article was first published in the
Florida Divorce
Magazine and are reprinted here with their full permission. |
 |
Common
Knowledge
"Common-law" marriages
aren't nearly as common as most people believe. Here's what you need to know to protect
your rights while you're together -- and after you break up.
By Brad Marcoux
You're in a relationship, and for the past
decade you've been living together. You share everything: the chores, the shopping, the
bills, raising your two children, walking the dog. At parties, you introduce each other as
husband and wife. The only difference between your relationship and the Smiths' next door
is that you didn't bother with the ceremony or the marriage licence. That doesn't matter,
though, because as far as you're concerned, you're in a "common-law"
relationship. If something did happen and it all ended, you'd have the same protection
under the law as the Smiths do, right? While this is what high-profile cases and popular
terms such as "palimony" have led many to believe, no matter how sure you are
about your marital standing, the law might say otherwise.
What and Where
The concept of common-law marriage dates
back hundreds of years. Originally, it was designed to allow those without easy or
convenient access to marital authorities to enjoy the rights and benefits of a legal
marriage. Even today, some states will consider a couple to be "married" -- and
to be entitled to the same legal protection as those who follow a more traditional route
-- as long as they meet certain requirements. Generally speaking, if a couple is legally
eligible (i.e. they fulfill gender and age requirements), is cohabiting, have consecrated
the relationship, hold themselves out as husband and wife to the community, and live in a
state where such relationships are recognized (see "Uncommon Recognition,"
below), they are considered to be in a common-law (or in some states,
"informal") marriage.
Many states, however, don't recognize
common-law marriages. "It's basically felt that, in modern times, the formality of
marriage isn't inconvenient," says Jeff Atkinson, an adjunct professor at DePaul
University College of Law in Chicago who serves on the American Bar Association (ABA)
Family Law Section Council, and is the author of The ABA Guide to Family Law. "It's easier to administer the law if there's documentation. Generally
speaking, more than three-quarters of US states prohibit common-law marriages. This tends
to prevent unplanned loss of property or of income upon the breakup of the
relationship." Beyond misconceptions about the legality of common-law marriages, some
people believe that they're simpler to dissolve than traditional marriages. The fact of
the matter is that if you fulfill the requirements for a common-law marriage, you're
legally married, which makes the dissolution of your relationship a divorce: the lack of a
wedding won't make ending your relationship easier or simpler.
Complexities upon
Complexities
Furthering this confusion is the fact that
you don't have to currently be living in a common-law state in order to be covered. If you
fulfilled all of the requirements in Washington, DC, and then subsequently moved to and
ended your relationship in Chicago, the rules governing your marriage in The District of
Columbia would be applied to your divorce. Confused? Then just imagine the complications
that can arise when such relationships end.
Regardless of whether they sanction
informal marriages, some states grant cohabiting couples certain legal rights and
privileges. In New Jersey, for example, common-law relationships have been explicitly
prohibited since the 1930s, but palimony (legally arranged support payments between an
unmarried couple) does exist on a contractual basis -- in other words, cohabiting couples
can use contract law to arrange for support in the event that the relationship ends.
Unlike some other states, New Jersey is one of the only ones that legally recognizes the
term "palimony," as well as oral contracts. "It's possible to have a verbal
contract in which you've been promised support," says Jeffrey Epstein, a shareholder
with the New Jersey firm of Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer and a fellow of the American
Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML), "but you must have witnesses who know exactly
what Joe promised Sally."
And if you're in a long-term relationship
where there has been some sort of "consideration" (i.e. you've paid the bills
and in return your "spouse" has minded the house and kids), palimony and
property division may be owed without any spoken or written agreement under a
"quasi-contractual" relationship. "Usually, such agreements are very
time-dependent," says Epstein. So living together for a couple of months isn't likely
to make you responsible for palimony, but the longer the time spent together, the more
likely the courts will consider your relationship a quasi-contractual one.
Quasi-contractual laws are currently only applied in opposite-sex arrangements, but
according to Epstein, "it's only a matter of time" before someone attempts to
use them in a same-sex case. And written cohabitation agreements, which can outline the
division of responsibilities as well as assets in case of a breakup, can be made between
heterosexual or homosexual couples. "But even with such flexible laws, you must
remember that most judges don't give unmarried people the same rights as married people,
so you must be careful," says Epstein.
New York's laws, by comparison, are less
flexible. "If you aren't considered to be married, then under the eyes of the law in
New York you are effectively strangers," says Lester Wallman, a partner in the firm
Wallman, Greenberg, Gasman & McKnight and the author of Cupid, Couples &
Contracts. "If you aren't husband and wife, you must show
that there was some sort of contract, either written or oral, to prove that you made
arrangements for the dissolution of the relationship. Otherwise, there is no basis for
recovery." New York does, however, recognize a "living-together agreement"
in which two people of any sex can define their responsibilities surrounding such things
as food and the lease. "It can also deal with major factors such as a provision for
support -- a fee for non-sexual services rendered," says Wallman. "There can
also be arrangements in case of the death of one of the parties."
"Quasi-contractual" agreements don't exist in New York.
Ron Rosenfeld, a fellow of the AAML and a
partner in the Beverly Hills firm of Zimmerman, Rosenfeld, Gersh & Leeds, says that
California law is similar. "If you're not married, cohabitation and consummation does
not entitle you to support," he states. "Any remedies you seek must come from
something other than marital law." California does allow for contracts between
unmarried couples who are cohabiting, but unless you have something in writing or
witnesses to testify you had a verbal agreement, "you have no rights," says Ira
Lurvey, the former chair of the ABA Family Law Section and the California State Bar, now
in private practice in Los Angeles. "You are free to set up any kind of arrangement
you'd like under contract law, but the state would still like people to be married."
On the opposite end of the scale, there are
states like Illinois. "We are definitely in the opposite corner from states like New
Jersey," says Beverly Pekala, the principal of the law offices of Beverly Pekala and
author of Don't Settle for Less. "You can pursue recourse through
real estate or contract law, but the law clearly states that if you want the same rights
as a married couple, you should get married." According to Donald Schiller, a partner
in Chicago-based Schiller, DuCanto & Fleck, Illinois has made it very clear that
quasi-contractual and verbal agreements aren't acceptable. "You cannot get support
based on cohabitation," he says. "If you're not married, you might set up an
agreement to take care of the estate, but unless you're married, you have very little
recourse for support."
Remember Retirement
Liberal as some states are, none of them
allow for easy division of one of the most valuable assets in a relationship -- the
pension. Verbal, written, and quasi-contractual agreements can only deal with the division
of assets and the payment of support, so "the pension won't qualify as an asset, and
won't be equitably distributed when the relationship fails," says Jeffrey Epstein.
Even if your partner had signed an agreement allowing you half of the pension, the
complexities of pensions might not make such a division possible. "The only way to
guarantee yourself a portion of the pension is to get married," asserts Pekala.
The complexities of pensions make division
difficult, but don't think that being the beneficiary on any retirement plan protects you
if you break up, since the person who holds the plan can change the beneficiary at any
time. Again, if you want to enjoy the rights of a spouse, you must become one.
Till Death Do Us...
Does all of this mean that despite years of
time, love, and effort involved in a relationship, you could lose everything? The short
and frightening answer is "yes." Since you aren't protected under marital laws,
the dissolution of your relationship may be no different than if you were to be simply
moving out on a roommate, and any legal action you take will have to be proven not on the
grounds that the two of you acted as a married couple, but on the basis that the two of
you made an agreement about what was going to happen when the relationship ended. And how
many couples sit and discuss who is going to get the sofa or Aunt Elva's good china when
things are going well, never mind having such a conversation in front of witnesses, or in
a legal document? But this is exactly what you must do if you hope to receive any property
or support if your relationship ends. Even if you live -- or have lived -- in a state that
recognizes common-law marriages, "that relationship must still be provable,"
says Lurvey. "You must have contracts, written or oral, and if they are oral, you
must have witnesses. If it turns into a 'he says/she says,' then it will come down to who
the court believes."
Other Ways and Means
This doesn't mean that you are guaranteed
to lose everything if you've been in a long-term cohabitation relationship, however. It
does mean that things are far more complex. If, for example, you've invested in the house,
but it's in your ex-partner's name, could you lose your whole investment? "I wouldn't
go that far," says Atkinson. "You could make an equitable claim of unjustified
enrichment and the court could order payment." The same may go for the rest of the
property. But don't expect any kind of support for yourself -- no matter how much time or
money you've invested. "The fact is that you're cohabiting -- you're not
married," says Rosenfeld. "You may be entitled to some property, but you are not
entitled to support." Children muddy the waters even further, as a parent is
obligated by law to help support his or her kids in their upbringing -- whether that
parent is married, single, separated, or divorced.
The Bottom Line
If you're living in a state that doesn't
permit common-law marriages and you're concerned about protecting yourself (as you should
be, no matter how good the relationship is), the only way to do it is to create a legal
contract that spells out the details of your partnership agreement -- including who is
responsible for the bills, duties around the house, and, if the partnership ends, how
house, property, and support issues will be dealt with. You can tailor such an agreement
to meet your individual concerns and needs, but be sure to have an attorney draft your
agreement and confirm that it is valid in your state. At the very least, make sure that
you have discussed such things with your partner, and that you have witnesses who know
about your arrangement. But be aware that this latter method may be faint assurance, or
none at all, if you end up in court. "You have to show that there is a written or an
oral contract that stipulates such things as property division and support," says
Wallman. "If you cannot, then there may be no basis for recovery. And as oral
contracts can be difficult to prove, the cardinal rule here, as in anything else, is to
get it in writing." Some experts put this even more strongly. Alton L. Abramowitz,
head of the matrimonial practice at Cooperman Levitt Winikoff Lester & Newman, states
that "there are technical issues involving oral contracts which make them virtually
unenforceable in the NY courts (e.g. the statute for frauds)." With the complexities
of the legal system, the importance of getting something in writing cannot be emphasized
enough.
If you're in a state where contracts based
on cohabitation are not accepted (Illinois, for instance), you may want to consider
setting up a trust. "The great thing about setting up a trust is that if it says the
moon is made of green cheese, then according to the execution of the trust, it is,"
says Pekala. She suggests having the monied partner make monthly deposits into a trust
account set up on mutually-agreed-upon terms. As in a contract, you're free to make any
sort of arrangements you wish, and you can set it up at any time.
Talk It Over
All of this depends, of course, on getting
agreement from your partner in setting up a trust or signing some sort of legally-binding
documentation. The problem is that some people are cohabiting precisely because they
believe it avoids all of the responsibilities that a legally-defined relationship such as
marriage entails. Convincing them that a legal agreement or trust can not only avoid
terribly complex legal battles in the future but can also prove that they have your
well-being at heart may not be an easy matter, but it's absolutely necessary to secure
your future. Contracts aren't romantic, but Ira Lurvey sums up the situation well:
"Without a contract, marital or otherwise, you have no rights. So either get married,
get a written agreement signed, or, sad as it is to say, find someone else."
Uncommon
recognition
Since the turn of the century, there has
been an increasing trend towards an explicit statutory prohibition on common-law
marriages, so that today there are only 11 jurisdictions that recognize the practice. They
include: Alabama, Colorado, The District of Columbia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Rhode Island,
South Carolina, Montana, Pennsylvania, and Texas (where they're called "informal
marriages"). Others, such as Georgia, have banned the practice within the last few
years. So don't let what anyone tells you, or even this list, be a comprehensive guide: be
sure to check with your local state authorities to see if your state accepts common-law
relationships. Or better yet, if you're in such a relationship, make an appointment with a
lawyer, and get an agreement in writing -- but be sure that your counsel is fully versed
in the complexities of your state. Don't be afraid to ask questions about the likelihood
of your contract standing up in court. Otherwise, even the best drafted agreement may not
help you if the relationship ends.
Common Facts
According to the US Census Bureau's
Fertility and Family Statistics Branch, the number of unmarried couple households has
increased dramatically over the last 24 years. In 1970, there were 523, 000 households in
which unmarried couples lived together; by 1994 that number had jumped to 3.7 million -- a
whopping seven-fold increase. Fully one-third of these households also contained children
under 15. And while these numbers may be slightly inflated due to landlord-tenant or
similar arrangements, the definition of an "unmarried couple household" includes
only heterosexual couples -- so the actual number of people who are cohabiting as if they
were spouses is likely much higher across the nation. Some numbers from the National
Center for Health Statistics (NCHS):
- 41.1% of all women between the ages of 15 and 44 have
cohabited with a man at some time in their lives.
- Over 65% of those women have been married at least once in
the past.
- 57% of those cohabitations resulted in marriage -- but about
one-third ended up breaking down.
- At any one time, about 10% of all American women are
cohabiting.
Complimentary copies of Florida
Divorce Magazine is available at our office.
The information you obtain at this site
is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an
attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation.
Copyright © by Feldman & Schneiderman,
P.L.. All rights reserved. You may reproduce materials available at
this site for your own personal use and for non-commercial distribution.
All copies must include this copyright statement.
|
|