-
I agree its time to move out and get on with her life. A house isn't worth letting that happen to you.
-
The Following User Says Thank You to gmyers For This Useful Post:
-
02-22-2009 11:52 AM
# ADS
Circuit advertisement
-
I stayed with him because part of me still loved him. I stayed with him because I have RA and fibro and no other place to go. I stayed with him and made him a home. I stayed with him because I worked too, for everything she is taking from us. And the hell with 'I hate women that blame the other woman'. Pardon me, but I am better than that, I would never screw around with a committed man and ruin his family- say what you want, but my mama raised me better than that. I have morals.
-
-
Originally Posted by
gmyers
What about squatters rights? After you live in a house so long and pay for things I wonder if you have rights then.
Depending on her state. If she does not have a lease he can give her a 5 day notice to vacate. I don't think adverse possesion applies here. How is she paying for stuff? The bank account is in his name and judges want to see receipts.. Saying you gave some one cash is not good enough. There are ways arround adverse possesion like restraining orders etc.
-
The Following User Says Thank You to ElleGee For This Useful Post:
-
Originally Posted by
NoFoolPrice
I stayed with him because part of me still loved him. I stayed with him because I have RA and fibro and no other place to go. I stayed with him and made him a home. I stayed with him because I worked too, for everything she is taking from us. And the hell with 'I hate women that blame the other woman'. Pardon me, but I am better than that, I would never screw around with a committed man and ruin his family- say what you want, but my mama raised me better than that. I have morals.
So your morals include lying to people that you two are still married.. Your morals let you stay with a man, not married, and Knowing he is a cheat and a thief.. And going back to him knowing this and letting it go on around your kids is moral too right?
And she isn't taking anything . He is GIVING it to her.
-
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ElleGee For This Useful Post:
ahippiechic (02-22-2009), mabby89 (02-22-2009), sheila_361 (02-22-2009)
-
I don't think some of you are getting it at all. I don't need revenge, these type of people only hurt themselves in the end, I just want him to do right by the kids. They should not have to pay for my stupidity in trusting and my (until yesterday) blind belief in the goodness of people and in God. I lost all that yesterday, I don't feel like a better person though, I just feel deceived and stupid. All I want is for him to help give our kids a start since they will no longer have this imagined family. That whore can go live her evil life, she is not my concern, my children are my concern and I won't let them be thrown to the wind like this, he owes them something. As I said, if he can afford his prostitutes tuition, he can afford his daughters tuition.
-
-
I don't know what you can do about their college tuition but I wouldn't count on him. Maybe they can get loans and grants thats what my nephew is doing. Hey don't lose your faith in people or God. This man just sounds like a bad person, very selfish. He'll get what coming to him one day. Someone will do to him whats he's done to you.
Last edited by gmyers; 02-22-2009 at 12:10 PM.
-
The Following User Says Thank You to gmyers For This Useful Post:
-
All he is required to do is help support his children.
And yes, there ARE places for you to go. You said you worked, but even if only on disability there are places you can afford. It might not be as nice as your house but no one could screw you and your kids over on it.
And if you don't care about the ho, why are you wanting to have her arrested?
He could sell that house right out from under you and your kids or just kick you all out. Having a studio walkup of your own would be better than that AND better for your children. But in her other posts, she says she'll never leave that house. I don't understand a house being more important than mine and my children's own welfare.
Last edited by ahippiechic; 02-22-2009 at 12:12 PM.
-
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to ahippiechic For This Useful Post:
ElleGee (02-22-2009), ilovecats (02-22-2009), mabby89 (02-22-2009), sheila_361 (02-22-2009), stresseater (02-22-2009)
-
Originally Posted by
ElleGee
How is he cheating? It's his money technically. They are not married .
You do not have to be married for it to be cheating....
I ain't from the south... but I got here as fast as I could!
-
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to dangerousfem For This Useful Post:
gmyers (02-22-2009), ilovecats (02-22-2009), justme23 (02-23-2009), Urban Cowgirl (02-23-2009)
-
Originally Posted by
dangerousfem
You do not have to be married for it to be cheating....
They're not married, not sleeping together and she knew he had someone else for awhile now.
-
The Following User Says Thank You to ahippiechic For This Useful Post:
-
Originally Posted by
tngirl
Most states do not recognize common law marriage.
Common-law marriage can still be contracted in 11 states and the District of Columbia, can no longer be contracted in 26 states, and was never permitted in 13 states. The requirements for a common-law marriage to be validly contracted differ from state to state. Nevertheless, all states — including those that have abolished the contract of common-law marriage within their boundaries — recognize common-law marriages lawfully contracted in those jurisdictions that still permit it.
Common-law marriage can still be contracted in eleven states (Alabama, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, New Hampshire (posthumously), Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah) and in the District of Columbia.
Common-law marriages can no longer be contracted in the following states, as of the dates given: Alaska (1917), Arizona (1913), California (1895), Florida (1968), Georgia (1997), Hawaii (1920), Idaho (1996), Illinois (1905), Indiana (1958), Kentucky (1852), Maine (1652, when it became part of Massachusetts; then a state, 1820), Massachusetts (1646), Michigan (1957), Minnesota (1941), Mississippi (1956), Missouri (1921), Nebraska (1923), Nevada (1943), New Mexico (1860), New Jersey (1939), New York (1933, also 1902–1908), North Dakota (1890), Ohio (1991), Pennsylvania (2005), South Dakota (1959), and Wisconsin (1917).
The following states never permitted common-law marriages: Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Louisiana, Maryland, North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Note that common-law marriage was never known in Louisiana which is a French civil or code law jurisdiction, not an English common law jurisdiction. As such, it is a former Council of Trent jurisdiction.
Nevertheless, all states — including those that have abolished the contract of common-law marriage within their boundaries — recognize common-law marriages lawfully contracted in those jurisdictions that still permit it. This is because all states provide that validity of foreign marriage is determined per lex loci celebrationis - that is, "by law of the place of celebration." Thus, a marriage validly contracted in Ohio, including common-law marriages entered into before that state abolished new common-law marriages in 1991, is valid in Indiana, even if it could not be legally contracted in Indiana because Ohio law is the basis of its validity. However, a marriage that was not lawfully contracted in Ohio would not be valid in Indiana even if it could have been lawfully contracted there, by the same principle.
I ain't from the south... but I got here as fast as I could!
-
-
Originally Posted by
dangerousfem
You do not have to be married for it to be cheating....
No I know... I just phrased it wrong.
-
