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

[Mistame]

Of course, a lot of things are possible.

Even in that case, you're assuming she entered the relationship with no assets and never worked. So this theoretical guy is marrying a homeless woman apparently. Also some courts consider things like raising the kids as work put into the relationship and give it weight when dividing assets.

I explicitly stated that she didn't work and there were no kids. Premarital assets aren't relevant, legally or otherwise. And many women get married straight out of their parents house or college. My point was that there are plenty of cases where assets are divided unfairly.

If you cohabit for that length of time, here, you are consenting to this. The same way you consent to pay taxes to the country you're born in, even if you never consented to being a citizen.

What a retarded analogy. Even if you get officially married, it still requires your consent. You can agree to everything right up to standing at the altar and if you say, "I don't", instead of "I do", you're not married. The entire purpose of involving the state is to officially acknowledge that you do consent to the obligations associated with being married. There's even a "grace period" after getting married that allows for annulment in case you change your mind. Cohabitation alone is not consent to being married any more than kissing is consent to having sex.

You are, still, making up absolute nonsense that has nothing to do with the state of common-law marriage.

I gave you links that show the history and purpose of "common-law marriage". The only "absolutely nonsense" here is your hand-waving after being shown to be wrong.

[Triggered Fridgekin]

why is that? id love to hear this.

She gets the house, kids, your favorite dog and varying maintenance (alimony?) costs for her as well as the children by default would likely be the argument in an age where marriage is treated more like a cell phone contract than a sacred bond.

[Eldar45]

https://www.thestar.com/news/queensp...le-splits.html

Shocking incident here.

Really demonstrates the important of marriage and avoid these long term "relationships" Now what does she have to show for it all?
This case could be tied up in the court system for a long time.

Also shows how greedy some people are and the lengths they will go.

Well, since they were alternating tickets this was a scum bag move but unless Canada considers live in relationships as marriages or they had a written and signed contract about these tickets (Which I highly doubt) then there is no case here. It is his money since he had the ticket.

[Endus]

What a retarded analogy. Even if you get officially married, it still requires your consent. You can agree to everything right up to standing at the altar and if you say, "I don't", instead of "I do", you're not married. The entire purpose of involving the state is to officially acknowledge that you do consent to the obligations associated with being married. There's even a "grace period" after getting married that allows for annulment in case you change your mind. Cohabitation alone is not consent to being married any more than kissing is consent to having sex.

And people consent to common-law, too. You refuse to admit that, because you'd rather irrationally claim that nobody understands what the law is, but that's not an argument at all.

Is birthright citizenship an awful travesty of justice, too? Is the fact that you have to abide by laws without signing off that you agree with them first a terrible thing? Or is your entire argument about "consent" just a deliberate attempt to derail?

[DrStiglit]

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

It was a personal bank account. They aren’t married, there is no division of assets.

[Mistame]

And people consent to common-law, too. You refuse to admit that, because you'd rather irrationally claim that nobody understands what the law is, but that's not an argument at all.

What? No I didn't. I explicitly pointed out that common-law marriage, where it's legal, is only valid if both parties consent to that status. I even linked resources to that effect, where it's made clear that cohabitation alone is neither consent nor common-law marriage.

[Endus]

What? No I didn't. I explicitly pointed out that common-law marriage, where it's legal, is only valid if both parties consent to that status. I even linked resources to that effect, where it's made clear that cohabitation alone is neither consent nor common-law marriage.

You pointed out that in certain jurisdictions, that's required. Which doesn't mean anything at all outside of those specific jurisdictions. It is not descriptive of the concept as a whole.

[Alcomo]

Yup, only men I know who get married are dumbasses or uggos who have to lock down pussy in fear they will never get another one.

And yet they still get more pussy than people who use the word "uggos". Now quit playing on forums in the computer lab before your teacher calls your parents.

[Rasulis]

Prove that you split ticket costs or alternated buying tickets then you get half. Otherwise, it's his money.

Shouldn't be hard to do. Any half way decent lawyer could manage that.

Also, what kind of girls do people on this board hang out with to have such a skewed perspective of life and marriage?

[Gaexion Ramza Beoulve]

Why post if you are not posting constructively? Nobody is forcing you to read the article.

Tennis, you are cancer and should leave this forum immediately.


[Infracted]

[PhantasmagoriaX]

So im going to side with the women on this, not just because "us women need to stick together" but the whole fact he kicked her out of the house! The guy is a total douche and i hope she gets her share.

[Mistame]

You pointed out that in certain jurisdictions, that's required. Which doesn't mean anything at all outside of those specific jurisdictions. It is not descriptive of the concept as a whole.

No, the history of it describes the concept. That being that those who want to be married but for whatever reason are unable to/haven't had the time can still have the rights of a married couple. It has nothing to do with the state imposing the status on a couple. In fact, that "concept" is a pretty clear-cut case of the state sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. Honestly, at this point you seem to arguing for the sake of arguing.

So im going to side with the women on this, not just because "us women need to stick together" but the whole fact he kicked her out of the house! The guy is a total douche and i hope she gets her share.

While I certainly can see your point, I can see his, too. Who's to say she wouldn't take her half and then leave? If his money bought the ticket, he should decide if it's split or not. The same applies if she'd have paid for the ticket. The reality is that if he kicked her out after winning, he probably wasn't really that interested in keeping her around in the first place.

[The One Percent]

And yet they still get more pussy than people who use the word "uggos". Now quit playing on forums in the computer lab before your teacher calls your parents.

I see you're triggered. Make sure to show your fat wife what you typed so she can congratulate you for being a good boy.

[Endus]

No, the history of it describes the concept. That being that those who want to be married but for whatever reason are unable to/haven't had the time can still have the rights of a married couple. It has nothing to do with the state imposing the status on a couple. In fact, that "concept" is a pretty clear-cut case of the state sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. Honestly, at this point you seem to arguing for the sake of arguing.

We're arguing because you're making things up and pretending your imagination is reality.

There is no imposition by the State, here. The hypothetical couple knew what the law was on this, and accepted that. You're completely inconsistent on this.

Why are you not complaining about the State "imposing" itself by enforcing its interpretation of what "theft" and "murder" are? Or what "citizenship" entails? Same difference.

Ignorantia juris none excusat and all that.

[Mistame]

We're arguing because you're making things up and pretending your imagination is reality.

I'm not making anything up. I linked the actual history and concept of common-law marriage. You're the one making shit up.

There is no imposition by the State, here. The hypothetical couple knew what the law was on this, and accepted that. You're completely inconsistent on this.

No, I'm not. Common-law marriage has always been about a couple that wants to be married having the same rights as a married couple. It's never been about the state "protecting" someone in a cohabitation where marriage wasn't the intent. I've never stated anything to the contrary.

The state doesn't get to say, "You've lived together for X years, therefore you're common-law married, with or without your consent". Only the couple gets to make that decision and again, cohabitation is not consent, regardless of what anyone says.

Why are you not complaining about the State "imposing" itself by enforcing its interpretation of what "theft" and "murder" are? Or what "citizenship" entails? Same difference.

Why are you still straw-manning? You're as bad as Elba.

[Endus]

I'm not making anything up. I linked the actual history and concept of common-law marriage. You're the one making shit up.

Given that you're pretty obviously objectively wrong about what the term means in some jurisdictions, including the relevant ones to this thread, I'm not making a damned thing up.

You have this weird idea that American law is somehow the progenitor and truth of all things, which is ridiculous.

No, I'm not. Common-law marriage has always been about a couple that wants to be married having the same rights as a married couple. It's never been about the state "protecting" someone in a cohabitation where marriage wasn't the intent. I've never stated anything to the contrary.

See this? Factually incorrect. What you describe is not how it works in Canada, which proves your claim false.

The state doesn't get to say, "You've lived together for X years, therefore you're common-law married, with or without your consent". Only the couple gets to make that decision and again, cohabitation is not consent, regardless of what anyone says.

Again, objectively and factually incorrect, regarding Canada in general, and Ontario in particular, which is where this issue is taking place.

Why are you still straw-manning? You're as bad as Elba.

That's not a "straw man". It's a demonstration of the concept of implicit consent, which you don't want to admit exists.

[Deleted]

If he bought the ticket. Why shouldn't he have sole ownership of said Money if he does not want to be with said Woman.

Too many gold-digging whores these days.

if the ticket was bought whilst they were in a long standing relationship, it should be counted as shared assets and split evenly of dissolution of the relationship.

In addition, if there was an understanding, whether explicitly stated or not, that they buy tickets alternate weeks, then this could constitute an implied contractual obligation between the two parties.

[Mistame]

Given that you're pretty obviously objectively wrong about what the term means in some jurisdictions, including the relevant ones to this thread, I'm not making a damned thing up.

You're right. Canada is making shit up. Its "concept" of common law marriage carries the exact opposite context of the original.

You have this weird idea that American law is somehow the progenitor and truth of all things, which is ridiculous.

Drivel. I showed where the concept originated from, which is exactly what the concept is. That you're still arguing this point is absurd.

See this? Factually incorrect. What you describe is not how it works in Canada, which proves your claim false.

What it shows is that Canada is violating basic rights by forcing marital obligations on people who may not want them.

That's not a "straw man". It's a demonstration of the concept of implicit consent, which you don't want to admit exists.

It should never exist in this context. Just because you want to live with someone doesn't mean you want to marry them. As I said, this is a clear-cut case of lawmakers sticking their noses where they don't belong.

[Endus]

You're right. Canada is making shit up.

And in doing so, renders your point false.

Are you seriously complaining that foreign countries are sovereign nations, now?

What it shows is that Canada is violating basic rights by forcing marital obligations on people who may not want them.

No, you didn't. You didn't show anything like this. This is where you start blatantly making shit up again.

There's no violation of anyone's rights.
This isn't "forced" on anyone.

Literally nothing in your statement there is factually correct.

[Deleted]

Why is this a thing? The one who bought the ticket gets the money. If she was actually the person to make the transaction to buy the ticket, than she has the right to all the money and going to court is justified.