$6.1M Lotto 6/49 prize in limbo after man leaves "live in girlfriend"

[Endus]

Is 'buying every other' considered 'splitting the cost' legally?

It would be, if it's "their ticket" that they're trading off who pays for it. Like I said above; it'll boil down to what's in their communication history about this. If there's a history of them buying "our ticket" regularly, or sharing prior minor payouts (like $20 wins and whatever), then he's hosed.

- - - Updated - - -

Well buying lotto tickets is one of the dumbest investments you can make, so I really don't have much pity for the people that actually do well making a bad decision like that.

That being said, the idea that someone can take ownership of something without an explicit contract being signed is silly, though I'm aware that there are silly laws in some places that basically consider cohabitation enough of an implied contract to extract wealth from someone, which goes to show that you shouldn't live with anyone you don't intend to stay with in those places. Should probably move somewhere that has more than a half-baked concept of property rights if you're planning to win the lottery.

Verbal contracts are a "thing".

[chazus]

Verbal contracts are a "thing".

I guess that surprises me, since I've been screwed over so many times in my life over verbal contracts.

[I Push Buttons]

Like Masark said above, in Ontario, it's 3 years cohabitation, or 1 year if you've got a kid together too. This relationship wouldn't qualify as common-law marriage; the case doesn't rest on shared marital property, but on verbal contract.

That's what I said.

[Trifle]

I guess that surprises me, since I've been screwed over so many times in my life over verbal contracts.

Verbal contracts are just as legally binding as written contracts, they're just harder to prove (which is really the key issue when it comes to disputes). So written contracts are still safer.

[Aquinan]

That's really a matter for the court to decide.

It shouldn't be though, he bought the ticket, he gets the winnings. If he is a dick an runs off with it that's outside the realm of the law to deal with.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

I guess that surprises me, since I've been screwed over so many times in my life over verbal contracts.

Thing is your need to take them to court and be more convincing to the judge that your not lieing.

[Mormolyce]

It shouldn't be though, he bought the ticket, he gets the winnings. If he is a dick an runs off with it that's outside the realm of the law to deal with.

He was in a relationship at the time, so whose money did he buy the ticket with?

[Lorgar Aurelian]

This has nothing to do with marriage law, in any way whatsoever.



Like Masark said above, in Ontario, it's 3 years cohabitation, or 1 year if you've got a kid together too. This relationship wouldn't qualify as common-law marriage; the case doesn't rest on shared marital property, but on verbal contract.



Because, as the article clearly showed, they had a verbal agreement that they'd trade off buying the shared ticket. He then lied about this winning ticket being a winner, and moved out and tried to cash in.

That's breach of contract at the least, and could be argued to be an attempt at grand theft.

Is it 3 years? Could have sworn it was 5 last time I heard of it.

[Endus]

Is it 3 years? Could have sworn it was 5 last time I heard of it.

https://www.rsrlaw.ca/news/5-things-...relationships/

But like I said; they wouldn't qualify, and this isn't about that.

[DrStiglit]

He was in a relationship at the time, so whose money did he buy the ticket with?

As it states in the article; his.

[sarahtasher]

So, you are surprised of what exactly ?

Be honest : you are in a couple and have a chance of getting 3 million. Whatever the gender, would you really be above the temptation to try ? I mean, for all the accusation of ''being a gold digger'...

[Mormolyce]

As it states in the article; his.

Begging the question though, isn't it? That's precisely what division of assets considers.

[Mistame]

MGTOW amirite?

What does "MGTOW" have to do with not getting married or the fact that divorces are generally bad for men?

Common-law marriage in Ontario doesn't kick in until 3 years and the article says they were only together just over 2 years.

I can't speak for Canada, but in the US, "common-law marriage" is only applicable if both parties agree and act as though married (join tax returns, call each other husband/wife, etc) and in a separation, the party claiming such an arrangement has to prove it. Effectively, it's an "unofficial marriage" and like an official marriage, it's voluntary. The state can't impose such a state on you without your consent.

Let me guess, you're assuming that the relationship breaks up, the assets are divided evenly and that the man earns/owns more than the woman?

It's possible. I mean, if they've no kids, he makes good money and she never works, I'd say that most of it is his. (Hers if she's working and he's not)

https://www.rsrlaw.ca/news/5-things-...relationships/

Just skimmed it, but if I'm reading it right, that's some scary shit. The state "force" you into a "married" state and then turn around and make you pay alimony to someone you never willingly married?

[Endus]

Just skimmed it, but if I'm reading it right, that's some scary shit. The state "force" you into a "married" state and then turn around and make you pay alimony to someone you never willingly married?

Except you did. Pretty much everyone understands what common-law marriage is. It isn't a surprise or a shock to find out you're common-law married. You chose to live with that person in that kind of relationship for that length of time, nothing "forced" you in any way whatsoever.

[Mistame]

Pretty sure that's not how it works in the US. I don't even think you can do joint tax returns unless you're actually married, can you? You can claim someone as a dependent as long as they don't make over a certain amount of money I think. Either way, pretty sure the only requirement for a common law marriage is being in a romantic relationship.

You actually can file joint tax returns without being married. And the two most important factors in a valid, common-law marriage are cohabitation and the intent or agreement to be married. Quick link

A common law marriage is one in which the couple, usually a man and woman, lives together for a period of time and holds themselves out to friends, family and the community as "being married," but never go through a formal ceremony or get a marriage license. Here are three requirements for most states. Just "living together" is not enough to validate a common law marriage.

1. You must live together (amount of time varies by state).

2. You both must have the legal right or "capacity to marry"

Both must be 18 years old (varies by State);
Both must be of sound mind;
Both must not be married to someone else.

3. You both must intend to be married.

4. You both must hold yourself out to friends and family as being a married couple such as:

Taking the same last name;
Referring to each other in public as "husband" or "wife;"
Joint bank accounts;
Joint credit cards.

In the US, common-law marriage isn't something the state imposes on you, it's something the state recognizes if both parties agree and never actually get around to making it official.

Except you did. Pretty much everyone understands what common-law marriage is. It isn't a surprise or a shock to find out you're common-law married. You chose to live with that person in that kind of relationship for that length of time, nothing "forced" you in any way whatsoever.

You should not have marriage-like obligations imposed on you by the state for merely living with someone. Your link is exactly the opposite of what common-law marriage was intended for.

[Endus]

You should not have marriage-like obligations imposed on you by the state for merely living with someone. That link is exactly the opposite of what common-law marriage was intended for.

No, common-law marriage was about protecting the rights of people who had long-term cohabitation with a romantic partner. The entire point is to grant marital rights to couples that haven't officially registered a marriage.

It isn't about non-church marriage or the like, or whatever you think it was for. That's already covered under normal marriage.

[Halicia]

In the US, common-law marriage isn't something the state imposes on you, it's something the state recognizes if both parties agree and never actually get around to making it official.

You should not have marriage-like obligations imposed on you by the state for merely living with someone. Your link is exactly the opposite of what common-law marriage was intended for.

Marriage law varies from state to state, but generally must be recognized federally.... afaik.

[Mistame]

No, common-law marriage was about protecting the rights of people who had long-term cohabitation with a romantic partner. The entire point is to grant marital rights to couples that haven't officially registered a marriage.

It isn't about non-church marriage or the like, or whatever you think it was for. That's already covered under normal marriage.

Common-law marriages were implemented in the US because couples who wanted to be married often had no official means of doing so. Yes, it is about granting marital rights to couples who aren't married, but only to those who want to be married. It's the couple, not the state, that makes that decision. The state cannot impose a state of common-law marriage on a couple where one or both have no intent or desire to be married. That's the point I was referring to earlier.

[Endus]

Common-law marriages were implemented in the US because couples who wanted to be married often had no official means of doing so. Yes, it is about granting marital rights to couples who aren't married, but only to those who want to be married.

This just isn't true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common..._United_States

If you couldn't get legally, officially married, then you couldn't get common-law married, either. If you could afford a marriage license and an officiant, that's all it takes to make it official, anyway.

It's the couple, not the state, that makes that decision. The state cannot impose a state of common-law marriage on a couple where one or both have no intent or desire to be married. That's the point I was referring to earlier.

And? This wasn't in the USA, and everyone in Canada understands how this works. Nobody's getting "forced" into anything, despite your wildly exaggerated rhetoric to that effect.

[sarahtasher]

So, I suppose everyone here will pretend that they would not even try arguing/suing for a chance for 3 million dollars ? (and that the girl is a ''gold digger'', but they would never do it, oh no)

(The ''gold digger'' is this case of bizarre gold digger that ''screw up men'' by, y'know, letting them live in her house...)