Divorce and Common-Law Marriages
November 7th, 2007
The term “common law marriage†refers to persons living in a conjugal relationship with each other and with the intention for that relationship to be a long-term one. Usually this intention is inferred by the persons cohabiting for some minimum period of time, often one year.
Â
Although there have been significant changes in laws which have extended many rights of marriage to common law relationships, there are still some important differences. Unlike marriage, there is no presumption to divide assets equally at the end of a common law marriage unless proof exists that the asset was jointly purchased. With respect to child custody and child support, when a common law marriage ends, there are no significant differences from that of married relationships.Â
Upon separation where a common law spouse was financially dependent upon the other, the court may require spousal support to be paid.
In 2001, there were approximately 1.2 million couples living common law in Canada, up 20% from six years previous. The number of married couples increased only 3%, showing that common law relationships are on an uprise and marriage is taking a back seat.
As for terminating a common-law relationship, a divorce is not necessary. In fact, divorce is not an option as it only applies to persons who have gone through some form of legally recognized marriage ceremony with each other. Ending a common-law relationship is as simple as for one person to seize cohabiting with the other.
Link to this page.
Can an ex-wife go after my income even though her husband has only lived with me for 3 month for spousal support
She has no legal right to your income. However, her ex-husband’s standard of living is relevant to the question of how much of his income should go to her in spousal support. And the income of his new partner (you) is relevant to his standard of income.
Even if there still married and she chooses not to work and he only has been here for 3 months and only made 16,000 for the last 3 years. She is entitled to my money even though I have my own son to support on my own.
That’s not what I said. I said (1) she did NOT have a right to your income (2) your income is relevant to your partner’s standard of living (3) your partner’s standard of living is relevant to deciding any claim his ex-spouse may have on his income.
It is hard to imagine that someone earning $16k per year would be required to pay much if any spousal support unless he is deliberately earning less than he is capable for this very purpose.