Writing Question - Legal implications of engagement

[neonlyte]

Some one may possibly know the answer to this.

When two people become engaged, does that imply any legal status?

Or is 'engagement' simply a private contract between two individuals.

If engagement has legal implications can someone become engaged if married to another person, intending to divorce that person.

I'm hoping someone may have personal knowledge, save me doing the research.

 

[Guest]

Some one may possibly know the answer to this.

When two people become engaged, does that imply any legal status?

Or is 'engagement' simply a private contract between two individuals.

If engagement has legal implications can someone become engaged if married to another person, intending to divorce that person.

I'm hoping someone may have personal knowledge, save me doing the research.

I believe it is an entirely private and informal "contract" of the spoken word between two people.

There are no legal implications or sitpulations whatsoever. At least there weren't when I got engaged, about 14 years ago!

Also, I know of one or two couples who have got engaged while one or other was waiting for a divorce to come through.

All it is, really, is the wearing of a ring (or sometimes not even that) to say, "Yes, we're gonna get married one day."

Lou

 

[neonlyte]

Yeh, that's what I thought.

The bloody lawyer in the story seems to think different, I think I'm tired, the inmates are taking over.

Stupid, you get a nagging question and can't move on until someone tells you you're right.

 

[Guest]

Yeh, that's what I thought.

The bloody lawyer in the story seems to think different, I think I'm tired, the inmates are taking over.

Stupid, you get a nagging question and can't move on until someone tells you you're right.

Well then, give that bloody lawyer a slap upside the head and put him back in his place.

 

[Liar]

Does this mean that in theory, there is nothing stopping me (other than my own common sense) from being engaged to a whole bunch at the same time?

 

[dr_mabeuse]

As far as I know, being engaged has no legal meaning. I remember one case where a woman sued her former fiancee after they broke up for breach of promise (she claimed he had promised that he would support her and so she acted upon his words and quit her job), but I think she lost.

Another interesting thing is that, where I live at least, the wedding ceremony has no legal meaning either. Once you have a blood test and take out a license, the marriage becomes official within three days whether there's a ceremony or not. If there's a ceremony and no blood test &/or license, the marriage doesn't exist.

---dr.M.

 

[matriarch]

As far as I know, being engaged has no leagl meaning. I remember one case where a woman sued her former fiancee after they broke up for breach of promise (she claimed he had promised that he would support her and so she acted upon his words and quite her job), but I think she lost.

Another interesting thing is that, where I live at least, the wedding ceremony has no legal meaning either. Once you have a blood test and take out a license, the marriage becomes official within three days whether there's a ceremony or not. If there's a ceremony and no blood test &/or license, the marriage doesn't exist.

---dr.M.

Thanks Mab.....I have been racking my brain to try and remember the phrase......'Breach of Contract'.

As far as I can remember, for a while in Britain/Ireland, Breach of Contract was an actual charge that could be laid against a man or woman who withdrew from a formal engagement, as in certain classes, the engagement was seen as a contract. I seem to remember hearing of several cases in my youth, but I doubt, with the prevalence of 'living together', that any such thing would stand up in a rational (and I use the word loosely), court of law.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

Breach of promise was a more serious charge two hundred years ago among the wealthy and titled. At that time engagements were not merely promises between two lovers, but involved a marriage contract including promises of dowery and other financial transactions which required the assistance of both families’ lawyers.

A man who reneged on an engagement would, to some degree be shunned by polite society, and always be considered a 'dangerous man.'

A woman who did such a thing, was effectively ruined.



The poor coupled with little (or no) cerimony. One of the benefits of poverty.

 

[neonlyte]

Thanks Mab.....I have been racking my brain to try and remember the phrase......'Breach of Contract'.

As far as I can remember, for a while in Britain/Ireland, Breach of Contract was an actual charge that could be laid against a man or woman who withdrew from a formal engagement, as in certain classes, the engagement was seen as a contract. I seem to remember hearing of several cases in my youth, but I doubt, with the prevalence of 'living together', that any such thing would stand up in a rational (and I use the word loosely), court of law.

Thanks Mat & Mab,
That's where my problem is coming from.
I recall now a recent court case (UK) where 'living together' implied obligations entered into. It was a case where an engagement spanned many years and the couple lived together as husband and wife. The court determined their assets should be distributed on that basis.

Strange how these things nag away. I don't think it will effect my current layout. But thanks for clarifying things for me.

 

[LadyJeanne]

There is such a thing as common law marriage, where you live together as a couple for, um, a long time? and at some point it becomes a legal marriage.

 

[matriarch]

There is such a thing as common law marriage, where you live together as a couple for, um, a long time? and at some point it becomes a legal marriage.

I don't think it becomes a legal marriage, but I do think common law marriage comes with the same rights and priveleges, but usually up to a court to ratify. Or summat.

 

[cloudy]

I don't think it becomes a legal marriage, but I do think common law marriage comes with the same rights and priveleges, but usually up to a court to ratify. Or summat.

I'm not sure about there, but here if you refer to yourself as married, and you live together, and I think in some states if the woman has taken the man's name, they're considered married, even if it's common-law.

Here in Alabama that's the way it is....even if you've only lived together a week. No court needed.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

In 1976, Michelle Marvin sued her boyfriend, Lee Marvin claiming that they had a marriage like relationship and that she was entitled to his property as if they were married.

She lost.

However, the court said that she did have a right to sue based on her claims of a significant relationship arising out of cohabitation and that others could follow in her footsteps.

This started a series of lawsuits and appellate decisions as the courts continue to determine this new area of law. This type of suit is now referred to as a "Marvin" action or, less formally, as a Palimony suit.

"Marvin" does not discern between heterosexual and homosexual relationships.



Quantum Meruit means as much as is merited.

When someone works for another without any agreement as to her/his compensation, the law implies a promise from the employer to pay the worker as much as s/he may deserve or merit.

This often involves payment for household chores, cooking, running errands, and things like that.

 

[neonlyte]

I'm not sure about there, but here if you refer to yourself as married, and you live together, and I think in some states if the woman has taken the man's name, they're considered married, even if it's common-law.

Here in Alabama that's the way it is....even if you've only lived together a week. No court needed.

Cloudy

Can you answer the next part to my original question. Is illegal in Alabama to set up home with someone else if you are already married to another person?

I think I'm clear on my original query but, if that were the case in Alabama, make a good plot bunny.

 

[cloudy]

Cloudy

Can you answer the next part to my original question. Is illegal in Alabama to set up home with someone else if you are already married to another person?

I think I'm clear on my original query but, if that were the case in Alabama, make a good plot bunny.

Not here.....it's not illegal, per se, but if a divorce hadn't been granted, or certain things such as child custody already settled, then life would be very hard.

Here's the law as it relates to common-law marriage (found it on a law library site):

In order to have a valid common law marriage, the couple must do all of the following:

* live together for a significant period of time (not defined in any state)
* hold themselves out as a married couple -- typically this means using the same last name, referring to the other as "my husband" or "my wife" and filing a joint tax return, and
* intend to be married.

When a common law marriage exists, the spouses receive the same legal treatment given to formally married couples, including the requirement that they go through a legal divorce to end the marriage.

Not every state permits common law marriages. For example, Michigan has elimated common law marriage by statute, and no period of cohabitation will result in marriage. At the same time, where a couple became married under the common law of a different state or country, their marriage is likely to be recognized even in a state such as Michigan. The "full faith and credit" rule of the U.S. Constitution ordinarily compels the recognition of a marriage made valid under the laws of a sister state.

As a result of the laws of different states, actions which can result in common law marriage in one state may not provide any legal rights or protections in another. While in one state, a common law spouse might be entitled to a share of the marital estate and even to spousal support, in a state which does not recognize common law marriage that person may not be able to lay claim to jointly acquired assets titled in their partner's name and won't be eligible for alimony or "palimony". Similarly, if cohabitation does not result in common law marriage, one partner may not have any say in how the other partner is treated in the event of disability, may not even have a right to visit their partner in the hospital, and won't have any right to inherit unless expressly named in the partner's will or estate plan.

Common law marriage is recognized only in the following states:

Alabama
Colorado
District of Columbia
Georgia (if created before 1/1/97)
Idaho (if created before 1/1/96)
Iowa
Kansas
Montana
New Hampshire (for inheritance purposes only)
Ohio (if created before 10/10/91)
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Utah

 

[neonlyte]

Cloudy

Thanks for that. Interesting stuff.

I can see how it would complicate life, that's in part how my original concern arose. How do you open a joint bank account, buy a home etc. If your married to someone else, do they have any claim in any thing you acquire prior to a divorce.

Thanks for your help.

Neon.

PS I wasn't around at the end on Halloween, so belated congrats on your second place, great story.

 

[cloudy]

Cloudy

Thanks for that. Interesting stuff.

I can see how it would complicate life, that's in part how my original concern arose. How do you open a joint bank account, buy a home etc. If your married to someone else, do they have any claim in any thing you acquire prior to a divorce.

Thanks for your help.

Neon.

PS I wasn't around at the end on Halloween, so belated congrats on your second place, great story.

In most states, anything acquired during the marriage, whether you were actually living together at the time or not, is considered fair game. So, yeah, it would complicate matters a lot.

Thanks, Neon.

 

[Boxlicker101]

There is such a thing as common law marriage, where you live together as a couple for, um, a long time? and at some point it becomes a legal marriage.

As long as the couple can be married, that is, they are not close blood relations and neither is married to somebody else, and they describe themselves as married, it is a common law marriage. I'm not sure about joint income tax returns. They might not be able to file those without a marriage license.

I don't think there could be such a thing as a gay common marriage unless the state specifically recognizes such marriages. If the state, under state law, does not recognize gay marriages, there would also be no gay common marriage, even if they were legally married somewhere else.

I believe an engagement is considered to be a legal contract if it is made public and both parties acknowledge it. If one party incurs substantial expenses and the other changes his or her mind, the mind changer could be liable for some of the expenses.

 

[LadyJeanne]

I'm thinking back to business law class - legal contract needs two parties, a promise to perform, and consideration (ring, quitting job).

But there must be something else, because I don't think an engagement is a legal contract. Could you sue to get your consideration back for non-performance?

 

[Weird Harold]

Some one may possibly know the answer to this.

When two people become engaged, does that imply any legal status?

Or is 'engagement' simply a private contract between two individuals.

If engagement has legal implications can someone become engaged if married to another person, intending to divorce that person.

I'm hoping someone may have personal knowledge, save me doing the research.

Your question is a complicated one because a lot depends on the setting of your story -- both in place and time.

Today, in most of the US, an "engagement" has very little legal standing practical terms -- it is however technically a "verbal contract" and the details of what assumptions each party brings to the concept are fertile grounds for "Breach of Promise" based lawsuits.

Many states still have "adultery" in their legal codes -- if only as grounds for a divorce.

If you're going to combine marriage, engagement, and adultery and divorce in your story, you're creating a legal quagmire for your characters in a modern US setting.

If you're writing a historical piece, the quagmire is even deeper and even involve the criminal code as well as the civil codes.

In various times and places, a "Betrothal" was an integral part of the marriage process and the legal behavioral limits imposed on the betrothed were as tight -- or even tighter -- than after the marriage was complete.

If I were a fictional lawyer advising a fictional man about getting engaged to "the other woman" before the divorce with his current wife is final, I'd cite "archaic laws" and the fact that almost anything he does is going to give his spouse ammunition to "take you to the cleaners."

There are residues of old social values still embedded in the law in many places that your fictional lawyer would properly be aware of -- he might not know the exact nature and implications of those old laws, but he would be wary of runing afoul of them until he'd had a chance to research them and advise against any action which might resurrect them.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I'm thinking back to business law class - legal contract needs two parties, a promise to perform, and consideration (ring, quitting job).

But there must be something else, because I don't think an engagement is a legal contract. Could you sue to get your consideration back for non-performance?

The promise to marry would be considered to be consideration as would the ring. For that reason, if she decides to break the engagement, she is legally required to return the consideration, namely the ring. If he decides to break the engagemtne, she has no legal obligation to return the ring, although it is sometimes considered declass to refuse to do so. The laws vary from one state to another, and I am presuming that he is the buyer of the ring. In many cases, of course, especially with older couples, the two of them buy the rings together. That's what my wife and I did.

 

[neonlyte]

WHarold
Thanks for your comments.

The story is set in Norway 2003. I've been 'googling' this morning trying to see what problems I might encounter.

Turns out Norway is pretty relaxed about 'out of marriage' relationships, 87% of first born are born outside of marriage (2002 stats.) drops to 63% on the birth of a second child.

Mind blowing figures I'm sure most would agree.

Because of this, they have some pretty clear ideas on how property is owned and dispersed when a marriage, or relationship, breaks down. Essentially this comes down to property, and goods, having to be declared as part of the marriage, anything acquired 'privately' or for personal use remains the property of the individual, as long as there has been no financial contribution from the other partner.

The courts have the power to change this if they feel a partner (and by implication any offspring) will be disadvantaged by a divorce or legal seperation - common sense, if the guy takes up with another woman, the wife and children are entitled to some compensation.

Because of the fluidity of relationships, any couple married or not can open joint bank accounts, buy property, enter into legal agreements, the law was extended in 2002 to cover 'gay couples', the Norwegian Finance Minister married his gay partner in 2002.

The couple of hours research was well spent, it pretty much answers all of my questions.

Though Norwegian marriage law follows fairly closely European law they have several unique variations. They have very recently modified 'Affinity' restrictions. Previously these prevented
a formally married man from marrying a formally married Sister-in-Law, unless both their partners were deceased - recipe for disaster if you ask me. Now they only both need to be divorced.

Curiously it is perfectly legal for a man to marry his daughter if she was conceived through the artificial insemination of a woman outside of the marriage. The courts recognise there is no logical way to prevent this from occuring and place the risk as so small that any law to prevent this would damage the artificial insemination programme.

Thanks to all who provided answers on this.

Neon - getting back to the writing.

 

[oggbashan]

UK 'Common Law'

Common Law marriages in the UK are dangerous for the woman and the man.

They give her/him no rights unless the 'husband' or 'wife' specifically arranges them such as naming her/him as the person to receive widows/widowers pension rights as a dependant.

A common law marriage can deny access to certain welfare benefits because the State assumes that he/she is contributing to the maintenance of the other.

It is difficult to set up mutual rights if there is no legal marriage (and probably much more expensive to do than a simple register office ceremony).

My advice to anyone in the UK in a long term relationship is get married unless there are good reasons not to. I have had to deal with the unpleasant consequences when one of my employees died without marrying his 'wife' and without making a will. She nearly lost her house to his cousin.

Og