Wedding Etiquette Forum

Friends Fiancé Isn't Divorced Yet

I'm back with another question. My friend is getting married in the middle of June. Or is supposed to be. But her FI's wife (they've been separated for a few years) is refusing to co-operate and has already told him she's planning on taking him for all he's worth and taking her sweet ass time doing it so he can't get married. My friend has already decided that if the ex does that, they're still going to keep the wedding where it is and hit up a Justice of the Peace later. Is this... Should I be side eyeing this. Like... I'm not sure if this is okay, or what.
«1

Re: Friends Fiancé Isn't Divorced Yet

  • I'm back with another question.

    My friend is getting married in the middle of June. Or is supposed to be. But her FI's wife (they've been separated for a few years) is refusing to co-operate and has already told him she's planning on taking him for all he's worth and taking her sweet ass time doing it so he can't get married.

    My friend has already decided that if the ex does that, they're still going to keep the wedding where it is and hit up a Justice of the Peace later. Is this... Should I be side eyeing this. Like... I'm not sure if this is okay, or what.

    This is not OK. This is fraud, at least in the very broad sense of the word.

    They're essentially having a reverse-PPD. I would be side-eyeing it, big-time.
    Anniversary

    image
    I'm gonna go with 'not my circus, not my monkeys.'
  • Yep I'd side-eye it as well.  They've made a decision to move forward with the wedding before having all the legal ducks in a row.  If he isn't divorced in time, they should just be honest and move the date.  I would massively side-eye this as a guest.
    Wedding Countdown Ticker
    image

    "I'm not a rude bitch.  I'm ten rude bitches in a large coat."

  • mysticlmysticl member
    First Anniversary First Answer First Comment 5 Love Its
    That's way more than a side eye.  It is absolutely not ok to go through a wedding ceremony if you are still married to someone else.  I sincerely doubt they will find a member of the clergy willing to perform the ceremony.  Maybe a friend would since they don't need to be ordained to perform a fake ceremony.  Also, if they happen to live in a common law state he could be considered guilty of bigamy.  


    Wedding Countdown Ticker
  • @mysticl‌ We're in Canada, so I don't know if that exists here. Can you tell me what that common law bigamy stuff means?
  • No, that's not ok. 
    What did you think would happen if you walked up to a group of internet strangers and told them to get shoehorned by their lady doc?~StageManager14
    image
  • Thank you for validating what I thought right off the bat. This girl isn't very... Wedding savvy. There are things she's doing and not doing that make me want to pull my hair out, and she won't listen so I'm kinds just going to let it happen and let the "I told you so"be free flowing after.
  • Canada[edit]

    In Canada, the legal definition and regulation of common law relationships fall under provincial jurisdiction. With the exception of Saskatchewan, a couple must meet the requirements of their province's "capacity to marry" within the Marriage Act for their common law relationship to be legally recognized under civil jurisdiction. Saskatchewan does allow married persons to have same time multiple recognized partners when one conjugal union is a civil marriage and the other conjugal union is a common law relationship (at the same time).

    Citizenship & Immigration Canada states that a Common-law partner refers to a person who is living in a conjugal relationship with another person (opposite or same sex), and has done so continuously for a period of at least one year. [9] A conjugal relationship exists when there is a significant degree of commitment between two people. This can be shown with evidence that the couple share the same home, that they support each other financially and emotionally, that they have children together, or that they present themselves in public as a couple. Common-law partners who are unable to live together or appear in public together because of legal restrictions in their home country or who have been separated for reasons beyond their control (for example, civil war or armed conflict) may still qualify and should be included on an application.

    Canada Revenue Agency states, as of 2007, a common law relationship is true if at least one[citation needed] of the following applies: [10]

    1. the couple has been living in a conjugal relationship for at least 12 continuous months;
    2. the couple are parents of a child by birth or adoption;[citation needed] or
    3. one of the couple has custody and control of the other partner's child (or had custody and control immediately before the child turned 19 years of age) and the child is wholly dependent on that person for support.

    For a full, up to date CRA description go here: Marital Status

    In many cases common law couples have the same rights as married couples under federal law. Various federal laws include "common law status," which automatically takes effect once two people (of any gender) have lived together in a conjugal relationship for five full years. Common law partners may be eligible for various federal government spousal benefits. As family law varies between provinces, there are differences between the provinces regarding the recognition of common law relationship. No province, other than Saskatchewan, sanctions married persons to be capable in family law of having more than one recognized partner at the same time.

    In 1999, after the court case M. v. H., the Supreme Court of Canada decided that same-sex partners would also be included in common law relationships. In Saskatchewan, Queen's Bench justices have sanctioned common law relationships as simultaneously existing in Family law while one or more of the spouses were also civilly married to others.

    Ontario[edit]

    In Ontario, the Ontario Family Law Act specifically recognizes common law spouses in §29, dealing with spousal support issues; the requirements are living together for no less than three years[11] or having a child in common and having "cohabited in a relationship of some permanence". The three years must be continuous, although a breakup of a few days during the period will not affect a person's status as common law. The law apparently doesn't require both parties to give informed consent to incurring responsibilities to another's debts, or losing control over one's wealth.

    No married person may become eligible to begin the three-year countdown to have a recognized common law spouse until divorce from the first spouse occurs. However, the part that deals with marital property excludes common law spouses, as §2 defines spouses as those who are married together or who entered into a void or voidable marriage in good faith. "Good faith" in a voidable marriage cannot occur if one or more of the persons are already married to another. Thus, common law partners do not always evenly divide property in a breakup, and the courts have to look to concepts such as the constructive or resulting trust to divide property in an equitable manner between partners. Another difference that distinguishes common law spouses from married partners is that a common law partner can be compelled to testify against his or her partner in a court of law.

    Quebec[edit]

    The Civil Code of Quebec has never recognized a common law partnership as a form of marriage. However, many laws in Quebec explicitly apply to common law partners (calledconjoints de fait) in "de facto unions" (marriages being "de jure unions"), as they do to marriage spouses.[12] Same-sex partners are also recognized as "conjoints de fait" in de facto unions, for the purpose of social benefit laws.[13] However, common law partners do not have any legal rights between them, such as alimonyfamily patrimonycompensatory allowance and matrimonial regime. The Quebec Court of Appeal ruled this restriction to be unconstitutional in 2010; and on January 25, 2013 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that common law couples do not have the same rights as married couple .[14]

    A 2002 amendment to the Civil Code recognizes a type of domestic partnership called a civil union that is similar to marriage and is likewise available to same-sex partners.

    Further information: Civil unions in Quebec

    No citizen of Quebec can be recognized under family law to be in both a civilly married state and a "conjoints de fait" within the same time frame. Divorce from one conjugal relationship must occur before another conjugal relationship may occur in family law.

    Same-sex partners can also marry legally in Quebec, as elsewhere in Canada.

    Other provinces[edit]

    The requirements in some other provinces are as follows:

    • In British Columbia, a person who has lived and cohabited with another person, for a period of at least two years is considered a common law spouse, unless one or both of them were married to another person during this time, according to the "Estate Administration Act".[15] This creates an automatic right to wealth or property accumulated, and will also make each spouse automatically responsible for half the other’s debt, whether they helped incur it or not.[16]
    • In Nova Scotia, a couple must cohabit for two years in a marriage-like relationship, and may not have been married to another person during this time.
    • In New Brunswick, a couple must live together for three years or have a natural or adopted child together. They cannot have been married to another person during this time.[17]
    • In Alberta, common law relationships have been subsumed since 2003 under the terms of the Adult Interdependent Relationship Act,[18] which may additionally apply to any two unrelated people living together in a mutually dependent relationship for three years. Only one interdependent relationship is allowed at a time. In the event either of the common law spouses are married to other persons during this time, neither of the common law couple can begin to be "interdependent" until divorce from other spouses occurs.
    photo a826c490-726a-4824-af5c-d938878de228_zpseb85bb5a.jpg
  • Also, if future ex wife is vengeful and wants to take him for all he's worth, him being engaged/"married" might work against him in court.
  • Also, if future ex wife is vengeful and wants to take him for all he's worth, him being engaged/"married" might work against him in court.
    I was thinking the same thing!


    I tried reading that wiki entry someone posted above, but I'm still unclear as to which part I'm supposed to be looking at...?
    image
  • Oh man looks like we have a couple trying to be like Kimya. Gag.

    After 6 years and 2 boys, finally tying the knot on October 27th, 2013!

  • afox007afox007 member
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Love Its First Answer
    Definitely a lot of side eye she is having a reverse PPD. FI's ex wouldn't cooperate with his divorce and it took forever; yes we were engaged before the divorce was final, but the extent of us planning was me hanging out here and us figuring out what we wanted.

    We refused to set a date because we couldn't guarantee he'd actually be divorced in time.
    image
  • mysticlmysticl member
    First Anniversary First Answer First Comment 5 Love Its
    I have no idea how it works in Canada.  Here in the US a handful of states have common law marriage where the couple does not need a marriage license and can be considered legally married if they meet certain criteria (which very by state).  There is a reality TV show here called Sister Wives where one man has 4 wives.  They used to live in Utah which is where all of the marriages took place.  His first marriage was a legal one with a marriage license.  The following 3 marriages were only commitment ceremonies.  Utah has (or at least had) common law marriage so those commitment ceremonies could be considered valid marriages and at one point the authorities were exploring prosecuting him for polygamy.  The entire family (husband, wives, and kids) packed up and moved to Nevada.  Nevada only considers him to be married to wife number one and they don't care if he is committing adultery unless she cites it in divorce proceedings.  
    Wedding Countdown Ticker
  • I'm in Canada. Common law unions are recognized by the government, but the requirements and effects upon break up differ between provinces. DH and I were common law for about 2 years in our current province, because we lived together for 2 years prior to that and presented ourselves as a committed couple. There was no sort of commitment ceremony or any filing of paperwork. We could file taxes together, add each other to health insurance, etc etc. We were never asked to provide proof of our common law status. The only significant asset we had was my car. If we broke up the car would have been considered common property to be divided. If there is property owned or kids involved, a break up is basically like a divorce. We never had any major medical stuff come up, but from what I understand, I would have had all the rights of a wife, but his parents could contest my decisions. You can not be considered common law if you are married to another person.

    Anniversary
  • Oh!! We have that here too! It's a common law relationship here too, if you've been living together in a congical relationship for 3 years, but you can only be in one.
  • I'm in Ontario, not sure where you are. But Lady is right, you can only be married/common law with one partner at a time. So if they files taxes jointly, or otherwise present themselves as a union then there could be legal repercussions regarding his previous marriage. 

    Also, should there be an emergency, they would deal with the wife and not your friend. Could end up being a huge deal if anything were to happen. Also he'd be jointly responsible for anything money-related. 

    Your friend and her partner need this taken care of. Presenting yourselves as a married couple when you're not is a bad idea, he should see a lawyer. They both should.
    image
  • I'd more than side eye.
    image.

    I'm judging this situation hard


    image
  • Also, if future ex wife is vengeful and wants to take him for all he's worth, him being engaged/"married" might work against him in court.
    I was thinking the same thing!
    I third this one. . . . 
                                    Daisypath Wedding tickers


    image
  • LabLove86 said:
    Also, if future ex wife is vengeful and wants to take him for all he's worth, him being engaged/"married" might work against him in court.
    I was thinking the same thing!
    I third this one. . . . 
    Definitely this.  He might as well write her the check now, it would be a lot quicker.
    Formerly known as flutterbride2b
    image
  • emmyg65 said:
    I never understand why people get engaged before their divorce is finalized, let alone start planning a wedding. You just never know how long a divorce will take.
    Yes.  I know it sucks waiting on a long, complicated divorce... especially with an uncooperative ex.  But why rush it?  Just wait until it's final!

    SaveSave
  • I think it depends on the couple. I think of an engagement as the promise of some day getting married. If one person is waiting for a divorce to be final then that is not ideal but a person's life shouldn't come to a screeching halt because of it.
  • My father married my stepmother less than a year after his divorce from my mother was final. At one point he was responsible for/cosigning on 3 separate residences; his own home, my mother's house and my stepmother's house. Of course this was used against him in court, for monetary purposes anyway. They have been legally married now for 22 years. I also live in Ontario.

    I have no advice for your friend, other than the obvious being that this is a bad idea. BUT I would really like it if we could define this using the term "Pre-PD". Thoughts? (Pre-wedding Princess Day being the longhand).
  • Beyond the new marriage used against him in court, if they open a joint savings account, buy a house together etc, the first wife may be entitled to half of that as she is still married to him. Let alone morally, but financially, this woman should wait until his divorce is final!
  • I wouldn't go. And I couldn't be friends with someone who would do this. Obviously they don't care about marriage vows at all so I see no reason why I would attend.
  • CMGragain said:

    I am old fashioned enough to believe that one cannot be engaged to a person who is not free to marry.

    Call me old fashioned then, because I agree 100%. My XH had a fiancee and a baby before our divorce was finalized. It was gross.

    Wedding Countdown Ticker
  • I could not bring myself to attend a wedding where I knew one of the parties was married to another person, regardless of the state of that marriage. I'd have a hard time supporting an engagement or even a public relationship of such a couple. I think that people should deal with one romantic relationship at a time and not enter into one romantic relationship until the prior one is done.  At a minimum I would advise your friend to not have dollar of joint assets with this person until the divorce is final, don't co-sign on anything, no joint bank accounts, etc, as she is just putting herself at risk. 
  • She has zero idea of anything etiquette and it's honestly driving me crazy.  If I told you all the things this woman is doing wrong, you'd probably disown me for still going lol.
This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards